Background: Potential solutions to bridging the research practice gap include collaborative frameworks and models. Yet there is little evidence demonstrating their application in practice. In addressing this knowledge gap, this in-depth case study explored how the co-creation of new knowledge framework and its four collaborative processes (co-ideation, co-design, co-implementation, and co-evaluation) are utilised to support people who had attempted suicide through an Australian psychoeducational program known as Eclipse.
Methods: Using a case study design and a thematic analysis methodology, multiple sources of qualitative data (collaborative group discussion, personal communications) were analysed inductively and deductively to examine the implementation of co-creation and explore the perspectives of researchers and stakeholders about co-creation and collaborative relationships.
Results: Three broad themes were identified: (1) understanding the language and practice of co-creation, (2) perception of trust formation, and (3) the value of co-creation opportunities. Ultimately, implementing co-creation with or between researchers, industry and people with lived experience requires trust, reciprocity, good fortune, and good management. While implementing co-creation, the co-creation framework was revised to include additional elements identified as missing from the initially proposed framework.
Conclusion: Co-creation of new knowledge poses many challenges to researchers and stakeholders, particularly regarding its “messiness” and non-linear approach to implementation and evaluation. However, as this case study demonstrates, it has the potential to become an alternative framework of best practice for public health interventions in third sector organisations, most notably as it eliminates the often-lengthy gap reported between research evidence and translation into practice. The research highlights the need for co-creation to further study its effectiveness in integrating research and service delivery to generate new knowledge. This may lead to a cultural and behavioural change in the service provider’s approach to research, offering better outcomes for providers, clients, policymakers, universities, and funders.