["Health Expectations, Volume 29, Issue 2, April 2026. ", "\nABSTRACT\n\nBackground\nConsumer and community involvement in health research is increasingly recognised as essential for ensuring relevance and responsiveness to diverse population needs. The Australian Women's Health Research, Translation and Impact Network (WHRTN) aims to improve women's health and build capability in women academics. WHRTN awarded targeted co‐production grants to support collaborations between academics and consumer teams across women‐centred research priority areas. This study explores the application of co‐production processes, including the experiences of academic and consumer leads in planning and implementing projects in real‐world research.\n\n\nMethods\nQualitative semi‐structured interviews were conducted with academic and consumer leads. Template analysis was used to thematically and deductively code de‐identified transcripts, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the National Institute for Health and Care Research co‐production principles.\n\n\nResults\nTwenty interviews revealed that co‐production was operationalised in diverse ways to meet contextual needs and deliver meaningful outcomes. Consumer and community involvement were consistently prioritised, with principles such as power sharing, equality, reciprocity, and relationship‐building evident. Project progress and outcomes were influenced by the developmental stage of the research team, project maturity, and strength of existing partnerships. Key enablers included strong leadership, prior co‐production experience, mutual respect, open communication, established networks, and clear project goals. System and organisational challenges included the slow pace of co‐production, resource demands, and working in sensitive areas such as Indigenous health and sexual violence.\n\n\nConclusion\nThe value of involving consumers in project planning and implementation to optimise impacts is clear and is supported by strong leadership, a culture of mutual respect and a clearly defined project scope. However, system and organisational barriers to meaningful co‐production persist. Recommendations to enhance co‐production include multi‐stage funding processes, policy and organisational changes, expanded opportunities for co‐production training, and allocation of additional project funded time. Transparent sharing of co‐production processes and learnings is needed to embed co‐production into routine research practice.\n\n\nPatient or Public Contribution\nEach funded project was jointly led by academics and consumers. Consumers contributed to all stages of project design and implementation, ensuring their perspectives informed decision‐making. An experienced consumer partnership lead contributed to data interpretation and preparation of this manuscript and is a listed author of this work.\n"]