Co-creation methods for public health research - characteristics, benefits, and challenges: a Health CASCADE scoping review.

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Danielle Marie Agnello, Vinayak Anand-Kumar, Qingfan An, Janneke de Boer, Lea Rahel Delfmann, Giuliana Raffaella Longworth, Quentin Loisel, Lauren McCaffrey, Artur Steiner, Sebastien Chastin
{"title":"Co-creation methods for public health research - characteristics, benefits, and challenges: a Health CASCADE scoping review.","authors":"Danielle Marie Agnello, Vinayak Anand-Kumar, Qingfan An, Janneke de Boer, Lea Rahel Delfmann, Giuliana Raffaella Longworth, Quentin Loisel, Lauren McCaffrey, Artur Steiner, Sebastien Chastin","doi":"10.1186/s12874-025-02514-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Co-creation engages diverse stakeholders, including marginalized populations, in collaborative problem-solving to enhance engagement and develop contextually appropriate solutions. It is increasingly recognized as a way to democratize research and improve the impact of interventions, services, and policies. However, the lack of synthesized evidence on co-creation methods limits methodological rigor and the establishment of best practices. This review aimed to identify co-creation methods in academic literature and analyze their characteristics, target groups, and associated benefits and challenges.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. The search was conducted in the Health CASCADE database v1.5 (including CINAHL, PubMed, and 17 additional databases via ProQuest) from January 1970 to March 2022. Data was aggregated and summarized, with qualitative data analyzed using Braun and Clarke's six-phase thematic analysis approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review included 266 articles, identifying 248 distinct co-creation methods published between 1998 and 2022. Most methods were rooted in participatory paradigms (147 methods), with 49 methods derived from co-approaches like co-creation, co-design, and co-production, and 11 from community-based health promotion and action research. Methods were applied across 40 target populations, including children, adults, and marginalized groups. Many methods (62.3%) were delivered face-to-face, with 40 articles incorporating digital tools. Thematic analysis revealed nine benefits, such as enhanced creativity, empowerment, and improved communication, and six challenges, including resource constraints and systemic and structural barriers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review emphasizes the importance of robust documentation and analysis of co-creation methods to inform their application in public health. Findings support the development of collaborative co-creation processes that are responsive to the needs of diverse populations, thereby enhancing the overall effectiveness and cultural sensitivity of the outcomes. This review highlights the potential of co-creation methods to promote equity and inclusion while emphasizing the importance of evaluating and selecting methods tailored to specific objectives, offering a critical resource for planning, conducting, and evaluating co-creation projects.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"25 1","pages":"60"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11884017/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02514-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Co-creation engages diverse stakeholders, including marginalized populations, in collaborative problem-solving to enhance engagement and develop contextually appropriate solutions. It is increasingly recognized as a way to democratize research and improve the impact of interventions, services, and policies. However, the lack of synthesized evidence on co-creation methods limits methodological rigor and the establishment of best practices. This review aimed to identify co-creation methods in academic literature and analyze their characteristics, target groups, and associated benefits and challenges.

Methods: This scoping review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. The search was conducted in the Health CASCADE database v1.5 (including CINAHL, PubMed, and 17 additional databases via ProQuest) from January 1970 to March 2022. Data was aggregated and summarized, with qualitative data analyzed using Braun and Clarke's six-phase thematic analysis approach.

Results: The review included 266 articles, identifying 248 distinct co-creation methods published between 1998 and 2022. Most methods were rooted in participatory paradigms (147 methods), with 49 methods derived from co-approaches like co-creation, co-design, and co-production, and 11 from community-based health promotion and action research. Methods were applied across 40 target populations, including children, adults, and marginalized groups. Many methods (62.3%) were delivered face-to-face, with 40 articles incorporating digital tools. Thematic analysis revealed nine benefits, such as enhanced creativity, empowerment, and improved communication, and six challenges, including resource constraints and systemic and structural barriers.

Conclusion: This review emphasizes the importance of robust documentation and analysis of co-creation methods to inform their application in public health. Findings support the development of collaborative co-creation processes that are responsive to the needs of diverse populations, thereby enhancing the overall effectiveness and cultural sensitivity of the outcomes. This review highlights the potential of co-creation methods to promote equity and inclusion while emphasizing the importance of evaluating and selecting methods tailored to specific objectives, offering a critical resource for planning, conducting, and evaluating co-creation projects.

公共卫生研究的共同创造方法——特征、益处和挑战:健康级联范围审查。
背景:共同创造让包括边缘化人群在内的不同利益攸关方参与协作解决问题,以增强参与度并制定适合具体情况的解决方案。人们越来越认识到,这是一种使研究民主化和改善干预措施、服务和政策影响的方式。然而,缺乏关于共同创造方法的综合证据限制了方法的严谨性和最佳实践的建立。本综述旨在识别学术文献中的共同创造方法,并分析其特点、目标群体以及相关的利益和挑战。方法:本范围评价遵循系统评价的首选报告项目和范围评价的元分析扩展。从1970年1月到2022年3月,在Health CASCADE数据库v1.5(包括CINAHL、PubMed和通过ProQuest的17个额外数据库)中进行了搜索。对数据进行汇总和总结,并使用Braun和Clarke的六阶段主题分析方法对定性数据进行分析。结果:该综述包括266篇文章,确定了1998年至2022年间发表的248种不同的共同创造方法。大多数方法植根于参与式模式(147种方法),其中49种方法来自共同创造、共同设计和共同生产等共同方法,11种方法来自社区健康促进和行动研究。方法应用于40个目标人群,包括儿童、成人和边缘群体。许多方法(62.3%)是面对面的,有40篇文章采用了数字工具。专题分析揭示了九项好处,如增强创造力、赋权和改善沟通,以及六项挑战,包括资源限制和系统性和结构性障碍。结论:本综述强调了对共同创造方法进行强有力的文献记录和分析的重要性,从而为其在公共卫生中的应用提供信息。研究结果支持协作共同创造过程的发展,以响应不同人群的需求,从而提高结果的整体有效性和文化敏感性。本综述强调了共同创造方法在促进公平和包容方面的潜力,同时强调了评估和选择适合特定目标的方法的重要性,为规划、实施和评估共同创造项目提供了重要资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信