By Dr Vanessa Abrahamson, Research Fellow, Dr Nadia Brookes, Reader and Lisa Richardson, Research Associate, at Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent and ARC KSS Co-production Theme (2020-2026).
Communities of Practice (CoPs) have become a popular way of bringing people together across health and social care to share learning, shape research and support implementation. CoPs are groups of people with a shared interest or role who meet regularly to exchange knowledge, solve problems and develop better ways of working in practice. The Applied Research Collaboration Kent, Surrey and Sussex (ARC KSS) supported the development of CoPs from its inception. We recently evaluated the ARC's CoPs - over the last 5 years - to understand what worked, how and why; what has been achieved; and what CoPs need to make them sustainable.
With support from three of the ARC's public contributors, we interviewed 23 people, including strategic leads, facilitators, practitioners, researchers and public members. The CoPs were all different (e.g. format, size, how often they met) but there were certain themes that ran across the CoPs:
Firstly, there’s no single “right” way to run a CoP, but most groups face a familiar set of tensions to navigate, including:
- how to balance online and in-person meetings
- deciding whether to keep membership closed (same small group of people) or open (wider membership, people drop in and out)
- whether to focus on a specific time-limited project or maintain a broader, ongoing remit.
These decisions shaped how CoPs functioned and how engaged members felt.
Secondly, facilitation is real work and it needs protecting
Keeping a CoP going takes time and commitment: planning and hosting meetings, staying in touch with members and maintaining momentum between sessions. Without protected time and organisational backing, that effort often falls to a small number of committed individuals, which makes the model hard to sustain long-term.
Thirdly, CoPs deliver learning, relationships and (sometimes) faster implementation
Members of CoPs consistently value networking, shared learning and access to new knowledge. These benefits often extended beyond the group itself, feeding into partner organisations and strengthening cross‑sector relationships. Smaller, project‑specific CoPs seemed particularly effective at supporting research implementation. Their tighter focus made it easier to move from discussion to action and to bridge the gap between research and practice in a defined area.
Finally, involve public members, meaningfully, from the start
Our evaluation also reinforced the importance of meaningful public involvement: public contributors should be partners in shaping the CoP's aims, expectations and ways of working and not just an afterthought.
The bottom line
CoPs can be productive spaces for co‑production, capacity building and knowledge mobilisation, but they don’t run on goodwill alone. They need practical support, clear shared goals, and recognition from member organisations that participation is valuable work.
So, what helps CoPs thrive? Here are some things to consider when starting a CoP:
- Co-design the CoP’s goals, purpose and intended outcomes early on including how success will be measured.
- Provide facilitators with protected time and the practical resources needed to sustain the group.
- Actively enable practitioners, researchers and public contributors to participate (e.g., time, permission and organisational recognition).
CoPs across the ARC are already doing important work. If we treat them as a strategic asset, rather than an informal add-on they will continue to strengthen collaboration, support research into practice, and build capacity across the health and social care system.
Further reading
Co-Production: Together we are better - a leaflet for the public.
A Guide to Co-production for researchers, services and commissioners.
Systematic reviews for researchers, services and commissioners.
