Localized osteitis fibrosa cystica (solitary bone cyst).

A. Basu

Indian Journal of Surgery

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Co-creation, co-design, co-production for public health - a perspective on definition and distinctions.

Carmen Vargas,J. Whelan,S. Allender,J. Brimblecombe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp3222211

2022-06-15

Public Health Research & Practice

Abstract:Collaboration between community members, researchers, and policy makers drives efforts to solve complex health problems such as obesity, alcohol misuse, and type 2 diabetes. Community participation is essential to ensure the optimal design, implementation and evaluation of resulting initiatives. The terms 'co-creation', 'co-design' and 'co-production' have been used interchangeably to describe the development of initiatives involving multiple stakeholders. While commonalities exist across these concepts, they have essential distinctions for public health, particularly related to the role of stakeholders and the extent and timing of their engagement. We summarise these similarities and differences drawing from the cross-disciplinary literature, including public administration and governance, service management, design, marketing and public health. Co-creation is an overarching guiding principle encompassing co-design and co-production. A clear definition of these terms clarifies aspects of participatory action research for community-based public health initiatives.

Medicine,Sociology
A review of implementation and evaluation frameworks for public health interventions to inform co-creation: a Health CASCADE study

Giuliana Raffaella Longworth,Kunshan Goh,Danielle Marie Agnello,Katrina Messiha,Melanie Beeckman,Jorge Raul Zapata-Restrepo,Greet Cardon,Sebastien Chastin,Maria Giné-Garriga

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01126-6

2024-03-30

Health Research Policy and Systems

Abstract:By including the needs and perspectives of relevant stakeholders, co-creation is seen as a promising approach for tackling complex public health problems. However, recommendations and guidance on how to plan and implement co-creation are lacking. By identifying and analysing existing implementation and evaluation frameworks for public health, this study aims to offer key recommendations for professional stakeholders and researchers wanting to adopt a co-creation approach to public health interventions.

health policy & services
Achieving Research Impact Through Co‐creation in Community‐Based Health Services: Literature Review and Case Study

Trisha Greenhalgh,Claire Jackson,Sara Shaw,Tina Janamian,TRISHA GREENHALGH,CLAIRE JACKSON,SARA SHAW,TINA JANAMIAN

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12197

2016-06-01

The Milbank Quarterly

Abstract:POLICY POINTS: Co-creation-collaborative knowledge generation by academics working alongside other stakeholders-is an increasingly popular approach to aligning research and service development. It has potential for "moving beyond the ivory towers" to deliver significant societal impact via dynamic, locally adaptive community-academic partnerships. Principles of successful co-creation include a systems perspective, a creative approach to research focused on improving human experience, and careful attention to governance and process. If these principles are not followed, co-creation efforts may fail.CONTEXT: Co-creation-collaborative knowledge generation by academics working alongside other stakeholders-reflects a "Mode 2" relationship (knowledge production rather than knowledge translation) between universities and society. Co-creation is widely believed to increase research impact.METHODS: We undertook a narrative review of different models of co-creation relevant to community-based health services. We contrasted their diverse disciplinary roots and highlighted their common philosophical assumptions, principles of success, and explanations for failures. We applied these to an empirical case study of a community-based research-service partnership led by the Centre of Research Excellence in Quality and Safety in Integrated Primary-Secondary Care at the University of Queensland, Australia.FINDINGS: Co-creation emerged independently in several fields, including business studies ("value co-creation"), design science ("experience-based co-design"), computer science ("technology co-design"), and community development ("participatory research"). These diverse models share some common features, which were also evident in the case study. Key success principles included (1) a systems perspective (assuming emergence, local adaptation, and nonlinearity); (2) the framing of research as a creative enterprise with human experience at its core; and (3) an emphasis on process (the framing of the program, the nature of relationships, and governance and facilitation arrangements, especially the style of leadership and how conflict is managed). In both the literature review and the case study, co-creation "failures" could often be tracked back to abandoning (or never adopting) these principles. All co-creation models made strong claims for significant and sustainable societal impacts as a result of the adaptive and developmental research process; these were illustrated in the case study.CONCLUSIONS: Co-creation models have high potential for societal impact but depend critically on key success principles. To capture the nonlinear chains of causation in the co-creation pathway, impact metrics must reflect the dynamic nature and complex interdependencies of health research systems and address processes as well as outcomes.
User Experience of the Co-design Research Approach in eHealth: Activity Analysis With the Course-of-Action Framework

Melanie Tremblay,Christine Hamel,Anabelle Viau-Guay,Dominique Giroux

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/35577

2022-08-09

JMIR Human Factors

Abstract:Background The cocreation of eHealth solutions with potential users, or co-design, can help make the solution more acceptable. However, the co-design research approach requires substantial investment, and projects are not always fruitful. Researchers have provided guidelines for the co-design approach, but these are either applicable only in specific situations or not supported by empirical data. Ways to optimize the experience of the co-design process from the point of view of the participants are also missing. Scientific literature in the co-design field generally provides an extrinsic description of the experience of participants in co-design projects. Objective We addressed this issue by describing a co-design project and focusing on the participants’ experiences looking at what was significant from their point of view. Methods We used a qualitative situated cognitive anthropology approach for this study. Data were collected on a co-design research project that aimed to support the help-seeking process of caregivers of functionally dependent older adults. The methodology was based on the perspective of experience by Dewey and used the course-of-action theoretical and methodological framework. Data collection was conducted in 2 phases: observation of participants and recording of sessions and participant self-confrontation interviews using the session recordings. We interviewed 27% (20/74) of the participants. We analyzed the data through nonexclusive emerging categorization of themes using the constant comparative method. Results In total, 5 emerging themes were identified. The perception of extrinsic constraints and the effects of the situation was central and the most important theme, affecting other themes (frustrating interactions with others, learning together, destabilization, and getting personal benefits). Co-occurrences between codes allowed for a visual and narrative understanding of what was significant for the participants during this project. The results highlighted the importance of the role of the research team in preparing and moderating the sessions. They also provided a detailed description of the interactions between participants during the sessions, which is a core aspect of the co-design approach. There were positive and negative aspects of the participants’ experiences during this co-design project. Reflecting on our results, we provided potential affordances to shape the experience of participants in co-design. Conclusions Potential users are an essential component of the co-design research approach. Researchers and designers should seek to offer these users a positive and contributory experience to encourage participation in further co-design initiatives. Future research should explore how the proposed affordances influence the success of the intervention.
Conducting co-creation for public health in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review and key informant perspectives on implementation barriers and facilitators

Giuliana Raffaella Longworth,Oritseweyinmi Erikowa-Orighoye,Ebuka Miracle Anieto,Danielle Marie Agnello,Jorge Raul Zapata-Restrepo,Caroline Masquillier,Maria Giné-Garriga

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-024-01014-2

2024-01-19

Globalization and Health

Abstract:There has been an increase in the use of co-creation for public health because of its claimed potential to increase an intervention's impact, spark change and co-create knowledge. Still, little is reported on its use in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). This study offers a comprehensive overview of co-creation used in public-health-related interventions, including the interventions' characteristics, and reported implementation barriers and facilitators.

public, environmental & occupational health
Understanding Co‐Creation in a Research Partnership Programme Exploring Patient‐Driven Innovations: A Qualitative Longitudinal Study

Hanna Jansson,Jamie L. Luckhaus,Henna Hasson,Pamela Mazzocato,Terese Stenfors,Carolina Wannheden

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.70003

2024-09-03

Health Expectations

Abstract:Background Research indicates that successful co‐creation depends on a shared understanding of co‐creation and its related concepts. However, it also shows that, in practice, views on co‐creation and how to do it differ. This study aims to explore how patient innovators and researchers in a partnership research programme understand co‐creation and how this understanding changes over time. Methods An explorative longitudinal qualitative study was conducted with the 'Patients in the Driver's Seat' partnership research programme. Fifty‐eight interviews were performed and analysed using a reflexive thematic approach. Findings Four different ways of understanding co‐creation were identified. These can be instrumentally conceptualized as themes using the inputs‐process‐outputs model: (1) combining different perspectives, experiences and backgrounds (inputs); (2) deliberately dynamic and exploratory (process); (3) striving for equity, not equality (process); and (4) diverse value creation, tangible and intangible (outputs). Together, these themes represent the varied understandings of co‐creation among partnership programme members. Conclusions Our study of patient innovators and researchers identified four distinct yet complementary understandings of co‐creation. The study suggests that co‐creation is the sum of its essential components, which can be divided into inputs, process, and outputs. Patient or Public Contribution This study, and the partnership programme it explored, aims to improve the relevance of research for patients and informal caregivers through an improved understanding of the concept of co‐creation within research on patient innovation. All patient innovators involved in the programme were invited, as interviewees and researchers, to contribute to the study design and data analysis.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
What is the Co-Creation of New Knowledge? A Content Analysis and Proposed Definition for Health Interventions

Tania Pearce,Myfanwy Maple,Anthony Shakeshaft,Sarah Wayland,Kathy McKay

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072229

IF: 4.614

2020-03-26

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Abstract:Co-creation of new knowledge has the potential to speed up the discovery and application of new knowledge into practice. However, the progress of co-creation is hindered by a lack of definitional clarity and inconsistent use of terminology. The aim of this paper is to propose a new standardised definition of co-creation of new knowledge for health interventions based on the existing co-creation literature. The authors completed a systematic search of electronic databases and Google Scholar using 10 of the most frequently used co-creation-related keywords to identify relevant studies. Qualitative content analysis was performed, and two reviewers independently tested the categorisation of papers. Of the 6571 papers retrieved, 42 papers met the inclusion criteria. Examination of the current literature on co-creation demonstrated how the variability of co-creation-related terms can be reduced to four collaborative processes: co-ideation, co-design, co-implementation and co-evaluation. Based on these four processes, a new definition of co-creation of new knowledge for health interventions is proposed. The analysis revealed the need to address the conceptual ambiguity of the definition of “co-creation of new knowledge”. The proposed new definition may help to resolve the current definitional issues relating to co-creation, allowing researchers and policymakers to progress the development of co-creation of new knowledge in research and practice.

public, environmental & occupational health,environmental sciences
The meanings of co‐creation

Nicholas Ind,Nick Coates

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341311287754

2013-01-04

European Business Review

Abstract:Purpose The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the diverse strands that underpin the still emerging concept of co‐creation. The paper aims to suggest that there are alternative views rooted in psychotherapy, critical theory, software development and design that can help provide a richer understanding of the meaning of co‐creation. Design/methodology/approach The paper is a general review of the field based on the literature and the different strands that comprise it. Findings Co‐creation is often seen from a managerial perspective. In this general review of the concept, the authors demonstrate that co‐creation can also be seen from the perspective of consumers and other stakeholders. This also shifts the idea of co‐creation away from a strongly rational approach to one that is more spontaneous and playful. Practical implications The review focuses primarily on consumers and how they can be encouraged to collaborate with one another to meet their needs for socialisation and meaning making and how organizations can influence and use the insights of co‐creation. Originality/value Over the past decade there has been a rapidly growing interest in co‐creation, but much of the research focuses on the creation and management of online communities. By recognising the antecedents of managerial co‐creation and its diverse heritage, it is possible to see the concept as a development of other practices. By drawing on these practices, it is possible to look at co‐creation in a new light.
Embedding health literacy research and best practice within a socioeconomically and culturally diverse health service: A narrative case study and revised model of co-creation

Danielle M Muscat,Dana Mouwad,Kirsten McCaffery,Dipti Zachariah,Lyn Tunchon,Julie Ayre,Don Nutbeam

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13678

Abstract:Background: Health literacy interventions and research outcomes are not routinely or systematically implemented within healthcare systems. Co-creation with stakeholders is a potential vehicle through which to accelerate and scale up the implementation of innovation from research. Methods: This narrative case study describes an example of the application of a co-creation approach to improve health literacy in an Australian public health system that provides hospital and community health services to one million people from socioeconomically and culturally diverse backgrounds. We provide a detailed overview of the value co-creation stages and strategies used to build a practical and sustainable working relationship between a University-based academic research group and the local health district focussed on improving health literacy. Results: Insights from our experience over a 5-year period informed the development of a revised model of co-creation. The model incorporates a practical focus on the structural enablers of co-creation, including the development of a Community of Practice, co-created strategic direction and shared management systems. The model also includes a spectrum of partnership modalities (spanning relationship-building, partnering and co-creating), acknowledging the evolving nature of research partnerships and reinforcing the flexibility and commitment required to achieve meaningful co-creation in research. Four key facilitators of health literacy co-creation are identified: (i) local champions, (ii) co-generated resources, (iii) evolving capability and understanding and (iv) increasing trust and partnership synergy. Conclusion: Our case study and co-creation model provide insights into mechanisms to create effective and collaborative ways of working in health literacy which may be transferable to other health fields in Australia and beyond. Patient and public contribution: Our co-creation approach brought together a community of practice of consumers, healthcare professionals and researchers as equal partners.
Co-Creation: A Novel Approach to Developing Guidelines for Research Integrity Policy – Lessons Learned from the SOPS4RI Project

Krishma Labib,Joeri Tijdink,,,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24193/subbbioethica.2021.spiss.73

2021-09-09

Abstract:"Co-creation is a qualitative research methodology that engages stakeholders in playful activities to produce user-centered outputs. Through an interactive and open approach, co-creation explores stakeholders’ latent values, generates innovative ideas, and captures minority views, allowing for in-depth understanding of how stakeholders are affected by various factors. Therefore, co-creation is a promising methodology for developing guidelines on research integrity (RI), although there is no literature available about co-creation in this context. In our presentation, we share experiences of using co-creation to design institutional guidelines on RI together with research managers, funders and researchers across Europe. We conducted 24 co-creation workshops on topics ranging from RI education, to creating a responsible research environment, resulting in concrete guidelines that research institutions and funders can implement to foster RI. Our experience has provided us with valuable insights on using co-creation for RI guideline development. While motivating research stakeholders – often serious and analytically oriented people – to engage in creative exercises can be a challenge, particularly in the online setting, it is possible to achieve when ‘play’ and ‘work’ are carefully balanced. Additionally, to ensure the concreteness of guidelines while accounting for differences among institutions and countries, best practice examples can be used to show different approaches to implementing more general guidance. We have also learned that it is valuable to explore stakeholders’ preferences regarding the guideline format, since implementability is not only influenced by the content. These insights provide practical considerations that other researchers can use when co-creating RI guidelines. "
Evaluation of research co-design in health: a systematic overview of reviews and development of a framework

Sanne Peters,Lisa Guccione,Jill Francis,Stephanie Best,Emma Tavender,Janet Curran,Katie Davies,Stephanie Rowe,Victoria J. Palmer,Marlena Klaic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01394-4

2024-09-14

Implementation Science

Abstract:Co-design with consumers and healthcare professionals is widely used in applied health research. While this approach appears to be ethically the right thing to do, a rigorous evaluation of its process and impact is frequently missing. Evaluation of research co-design is important to identify areas of improvement in the methods and processes, as well as to determine whether research co-design leads to better outcomes. We aimed to build on current literature to develop a framework to assist researchers with the evaluation of co-design processes and impacts.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Transforming health-care service through consumer co-creation: directions for service design

Joan Carlini,Rachel Muir,Annette McLaren-Kennedy,Laurie Grealish

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/jsm-12-2022-0373

IF: 5.246

2023-11-24

Journal of Services Marketing

Abstract:Purpose The increasing financial burden and complexity of health-care services, exacerbated by factors such as an ageing population and the rise of chronic conditions, necessitate comprehensive and integrated care approaches. While co-created service design has proven valuable in transforming some service industries, its application to the health-care industry is not well understood. This study aims to examine how health consumers are involved in health-care service co-creation. Design/methodology/approach The study searched 11 electronic databases for peer-reviewed articles published between 2010 and 2019. Additionally, hand searches of reference lists from included studies, Google © citation searches and searches for grey literature were conducted. The Whittemore and Knafl integrative framework guided the systematic review, and Callahan's 6 Ws framework was used to extract data from the included articles, facilitating comparisons. Findings The authors identified 21 articles, mainly from the UK, North America and Australia. Despite the need for more research, findings reveal limited and geographically narrow empirical studies with restricted theory and method applications. From these findings, the authors constructed a conceptual model to enhance nuanced understanding. Originality/value This study offers four contributions. First, it introduces the Health Service Design Transformation Model for Comprehensive Consumer Co-Creation, illustrating health consumers' multifaceted roles in shaping services. Second, consumer vulnerabilities in co-creating services are identified, linked to diverse consumer groups, power dynamics and decision complexity. Third, this study suggests broadening participant inclusion may enhance consumer-centricity, inclusivity and innovation in service design. Finally, the research agenda explores consumer experiences, organizational dynamics, value outcomes and co-creation theory for health-care service advancement.

business
Planning, implementing and governing systems-based co-creation: the DISCOVER framework

Niamh Smith,Michail Georgiou,Mohammad S. Jalali,Sebastien Chastin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01076-5

2024-01-11

Health Research Policy and Systems

Abstract:Increasingly, public health faces challenges requiring complex, multifaceted and multi-sectoral responses. This calls for systems-based approaches that facilitate the kind of collective and collaborative thinking and working required to address complexity. While the literature on systems thinking, system dynamics and the associated methodologies is extensive, there remains little clear guidance on how to plan, govern and implement participatory systems approaches within a co-creation process.

health policy & services
[Medial forebrain bundle and stria medullaris thalami in cats and rabbits].

N. Hagino

1961-08-01

Abstract:
Histology of retinal lesions produced with Q-switched lasers.

J. Marshall,H. Mellerio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-4835(68)80071-5

IF: 3.77

1968-04-01

Experimental Eye Research

Abstract:
Hydrolysis of phosphatidylcholine by phospholipase D is a common response to mitogens which stimulate inositol lipid hydrolysis in Swiss 3T3 fibroblasts.

S. Cook,M. Wakelam

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4889(91)90166-U

1991-04-17

Biochimica et Biophysica Acta

Abstract:
Co‐Creation in Research: Further Reflections From the 'Co‐Creating Safe Spaces' Project

Scott J. Fitzpatrick,Heather Lamb,Erin Oldman,Melanie Giugni,Cassandra Chakouch,Alyssa R. Morse,Amelia Gulliver,Erin Stewart,Stride Safe Space and Safe Haven Team,Helen T. Oni,Benn Miller,Bronwen Edwards,Kelly Stewart,Vida Bliokas,Louise A. Ellis,Fiona Shand,Alison L. Calear,Michelle Banfield

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.70103

2024-11-23

Health Expectations

Abstract:Background Applied research using co‐creation methods is rarely described or evaluated in detail. Practical evidence of co‐creation processes and collaboration effectiveness is needed to better understand its complex and dynamic nature. Methods Using a case study design and survey method, we assessed processes of co‐implementation and co‐evaluation grounded in our own experiences from the Co‐Creating Safe Spaces project. We examine these in the context of a published systematic framework designed to improve clarity about co‐creation processes and report on how co‐creation was experienced by collaborative partners. Results Our study showed the interconnectedness between co‐implementation and co‐evaluation processes and the importance of aligning research with program processes to ensure it is responsive to emergent local needs and problems. Given relatively low levels of researcher embeddedness across sites, service champions played a pivotal role in data collection. Survey findings indicated strong support for a healthy collaboration with some concerns expressed over individual partner's areas of responsibility and ability to deliver on commitments. Conclusion Co‐creation can be a very robust approach to translational research but is a complex endeavour. Ongoing reflexivity and attention to relational aspects support genuine collaboration and provide a foundation for addressing challenges. Patient or Public Contribution People with lived experience of emotional distress and/or suicidal crisis, including researchers from both academic and non‐research backgrounds, service managers, peer workers, carers and advocates, were involved in this research and authored this paper.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews

Peter Slattery,Alexander K. Saeri,Peter Bragge

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-0528-9

2020-02-11

Health Research Policy and Systems

Abstract:Abstract Background Billions of dollars are lost annually in health research that fails to create meaningful benefits for patients. Engaging in research co-design – the meaningful involvement of end-users in research – may help address this research waste. This rapid overview of reviews addressed three related questions, namely (1) what approaches to research co-design exist in health settings? (2) What activities do these research co-design approaches involve? (3) What do we know about the effectiveness of existing research co-design approaches? The review focused on the study planning phase of research, defined as the point up to which the research question and study design are finalised. Methods Reviews of research co-design were systematically identified using a rapid overview of reviews approach (PROSPERO: CRD42019123034). The search strategy encompassed three academic databases, three grey literature databases, and a hand-search of the journal Research Involvement and Engagement . Two reviewers independently conducted the screening and data extraction and resolved disagreements through discussion. Disputes were resolved through discussion with a senior author (PB). One reviewer performed quality assessment. The results were narratively synthesised. Results A total of 26 records (reporting on 23 reviews) met the inclusion criteria. Reviews varied widely in their application of ‘research co-design’ and their application contexts, scope and theoretical foci. The research co-design approaches identified involved interactions with end-users outside of study planning, such as recruitment and dissemination. Activities involved in research co-design included focus groups, interviews and surveys. The effectiveness of research co-design has rarely been evaluated empirically or experimentally; however, qualitative exploration has described the positive and negative outcomes associated with co-design. The research provided many recommendations for conducting research co-design, including training participating end-users in research skills, having regular communication between researchers and end-users, setting clear end-user expectations, and assigning set roles to all parties involved in co-design. Conclusions Research co-design appears to be widely used but seldom described or evaluated in detail. Though it has rarely been tested empirically or experimentally, existing research suggests that it can benefit researchers, practitioners, research processes and research outcomes. Realising the potential of research co-design may require the development of clearer and more consistent terminology, better reporting of the activities involved and better evaluation.

health policy & services
Lessons learned about co-creation: developing a complex intervention in rural Peru

Maria Lazo-Porras,Silvana Perez-Leon,Maria Kathia Cardenas,M. Amalia Pesantes,J. Jaime Miranda,L. Suzanne Suggs,François Chappuis,Pablo Perel,David Beran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2020.1754016

IF: 2.996

2020-05-14

Global Health Action

Abstract:Background: Co-creation is the process of involving stakeholders in the development of interventions. Although co-creation is becoming more widespread, reports of the process and lessons learned are scarce.Objective: To describe the process and lessons learned from using the COHESION manual, a co-creation methodology to develop interventions aimed at the improvement of diagnosis and/or management of chronic diseases at the primary healthcare level in a low-resource setting in Peru.Methods: Observational study to describe the use of the COHESION manual 'Moving from Research to Interventions: The COHESION Model' developed for a multi-country project in low- and middle-income countries for co-creation and the adaptations needed to customize it to the local context of rural communities in northern Peru.Results: The actual process of co-creation in Peru included co-creation-related questions in the formative research; an initial consultation with stakeholders at the micro, meso, and macro levels (e.g. community members, health workers, and policy-makers); the analysis of the collected data; a second consultation with each stakeholder group; the prioritization of intervention options; and finally the design of a theory of change for all activities included in the complex intervention. The complex intervention included: 1) offer training in specific diseases and soft skills to health workers, 2) create radio programs that promote chronic disease prevention and management plus empower patients to ask questions during their visits to primary health care (PHC) facilities, and 3) provide a small grant to the PHC for infrastructure improvement. Small adaptations to the COHESION manual were necessary for this co-creation process.Conclusion: This study provides a practical example of the process of co-creating complex interventions to increase access and quality of health care in a low-resource setting. The process, components, challenges and opportunities identified could be useful for other researchers who want to co-create interventions with beneficiaries in similar settings.

public, environmental & occupational health
Navigating process evaluation in co-creation: a Health CASCADE scoping review of used frameworks and assessed components

Giuliana Raffaella Longworth,Janneke de Boer,Kunshan Goh,Danielle Marie Agnello,Lauren McCaffrey,Jorge Raul Zapata Restrepo,Qingfan An,Sebastien Chastin,Aaron Davis,Teatske Altenburg,Maite Verloigne,Maria Giné-Garriga

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014483

IF: 8.056

2024-07-01

BMJ Global Health

Abstract:Background Co-creation is seen as a way to ensure all relevant needs and perspectives are included and to increase its potential for beneficial effects and uptake process evaluation is crucial. However, existing process evaluation frameworks have been built on practices characterised by top-down developed and implemented interventions and may be limited in capturing essential elements of co-creation. This study aims to provide a review of studies planning and/or conducting a process evaluation of public health interventions adopting a co-creation approach and aims to derive assessed process evaluation components, used frameworks and insights into formative and/or participatory evaluation. Methods We searched for studies on Scopus and the Health CASCADE Co-Creation Database. Co-authors performed a concept-mapping exercise to create a set of overarching dimensions for clustering the identified process evaluation components. Results 54 studies were included. Conceptualisation of process evaluation included in studies concerned intervention implementation, outcome evaluation, mechanisms of impact, context and the co-creation process. 22 studies (40%) referenced ten existing process evaluation or evaluation frameworks and most referenced were the frameworks developed by Moore et al (14%), Saunders et al (5%), Steckler and Linnan (5%) and Nielsen and Randall (5%). 38 process evaluation components were identified, with a focus on participation (48%), context (40%), the experience of co-creators (29%), impact (29%), satisfaction (25%) and fidelity (24%). 13 studies (24%) conducted formative evaluation, 37 (68%) conducted summative evaluation and 2 studies (3%) conducted participatory evaluation. Conclusion The broad spectrum of process evaluation components addressed in co-creation studies, covering both the evaluation of the co-creation process and the intervention implementation, highlights the need for a process evaluation tailored to co-creation studies. This work provides an overview of process evaluation components, clustered in dimensions and reflections which researchers and practitioners can use to plan a process evaluation of a co-creation process and intervention.

public, environmental & occupational health

Localized osteitis fibrosa cystica (solitary bone cyst).

Co-creation, co-design, co-production for public health - a perspective on definition and distinctions.

A review of implementation and evaluation frameworks for public health interventions to inform co-creation: a Health CASCADE study

Achieving Research Impact Through Co‐creation in Community‐Based Health Services: Literature Review and Case Study

User Experience of the Co-design Research Approach in eHealth: Activity Analysis With the Course-of-Action Framework

Conducting co-creation for public health in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review and key informant perspectives on implementation barriers and facilitators

Understanding Co‐Creation in a Research Partnership Programme Exploring Patient‐Driven Innovations: A Qualitative Longitudinal Study

What is the Co-Creation of New Knowledge? A Content Analysis and Proposed Definition for Health Interventions

The meanings of co‐creation

Embedding health literacy research and best practice within a socioeconomically and culturally diverse health service: A narrative case study and revised model of co-creation

Co-Creation: A Novel Approach to Developing Guidelines for Research Integrity Policy – Lessons Learned from the SOPS4RI Project

Evaluation of research co-design in health: a systematic overview of reviews and development of a framework

Transforming health-care service through consumer co-creation: directions for service design

Planning, implementing and governing systems-based co-creation: the DISCOVER framework

[Medial forebrain bundle and stria medullaris thalami in cats and rabbits].

Histology of retinal lesions produced with Q-switched lasers.

Hydrolysis of phosphatidylcholine by phospholipase D is a common response to mitogens which stimulate inositol lipid hydrolysis in Swiss 3T3 fibroblasts.

Co‐Creation in Research: Further Reflections From the 'Co‐Creating Safe Spaces' Project

Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews

Lessons learned about co-creation: developing a complex intervention in rural Peru

Navigating process evaluation in co-creation: a Health CASCADE scoping review of used frameworks and assessed components