Co-creation in research, policy engagement and advocacy: Lessons and limits from two decades of practice at the African Population and Health Research Center.

IF 2.8
PLOS global public health Pub Date : 2026-09-30 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pgph.0007405
Emmanuel Oloche Otukpa, Abdhalah K Ziraba, Luchuo Engelbert Bain
{"title":"Co-creation in research, policy engagement and advocacy: Lessons and limits from two decades of practice at the African Population and Health Research Center.","authors":"Emmanuel Oloche Otukpa, Abdhalah K Ziraba, Luchuo Engelbert Bain","doi":"10.1371/journal.pgph.0007405","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Co-creation is widely advocated in global health research and inconsistently practiced. This paper offers a reflective, practice-based synthesis of two decades of co-created research, policy engagement and advocacy at the African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC).We define co-creation through four dimensions; shared agenda setting, joint knowledge production, power sharing, and community leadership and ownership. We distinguish it from consultation, stakeholder engagement and partnership, and assess each dimension on a graded scale. To this we add a second axis: the reach of co-creation across the research-to-policy-to-advocacy interface, and the condition of the transitions between its segments. Six cases spanning evidence generation, policy processes, capacity strengthening and rights-based advocacy are assessed against both axes. Three findings emerge. Co-creation in this institution's practice is substantive where knowledge is produced and weak where authority is held. Agendas were substantively shared in four of six cases and financial resources in none. It fails at the transitions between research, policy engagement and advocacy rather than within them, at moments that were neither designed nor evaluated nor recorded. And the domains of co-creation differ systematically in the dimensions they can realize, with community leadership substantive only in rights-based advocacy. We draw practice guidance on governance, funding, community roles, transitions and assessment, and state what a single-institution insider synthesis cannot establish.</p>","PeriodicalId":74466,"journal":{"name":"PLOS global public health","volume":"6 9","pages":"e0007405"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13626369/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLOS global public health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0007405","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Co-creation is widely advocated in global health research and inconsistently practiced. This paper offers a reflective, practice-based synthesis of two decades of co-created research, policy engagement and advocacy at the African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC).We define co-creation through four dimensions; shared agenda setting, joint knowledge production, power sharing, and community leadership and ownership. We distinguish it from consultation, stakeholder engagement and partnership, and assess each dimension on a graded scale. To this we add a second axis: the reach of co-creation across the research-to-policy-to-advocacy interface, and the condition of the transitions between its segments. Six cases spanning evidence generation, policy processes, capacity strengthening and rights-based advocacy are assessed against both axes. Three findings emerge. Co-creation in this institution's practice is substantive where knowledge is produced and weak where authority is held. Agendas were substantively shared in four of six cases and financial resources in none. It fails at the transitions between research, policy engagement and advocacy rather than within them, at moments that were neither designed nor evaluated nor recorded. And the domains of co-creation differ systematically in the dimensions they can realize, with community leadership substantive only in rights-based advocacy. We draw practice guidance on governance, funding, community roles, transitions and assessment, and state what a single-institution insider synthesis cannot establish.

研究、政策参与和宣传方面的共同创造:非洲人口与健康研究中心二十年实践的教训和限制。
在全球卫生研究中广泛提倡共同创造,但实践并不一致。这篇论文对非洲人口与健康研究中心(APHRC)二十年来共同创建的研究、政策参与和宣传进行了反思和基于实践的综合。我们通过四个维度来定义共同创造;共同制定议程,共同生产知识,分享权力,以及社区领导和所有权。我们将其与咨询、利益相关者参与和伙伴关系区分开来,并对每个维度进行分级评估。在此基础上,我们增加了第二个轴:共同创造跨越研究-政策-倡导界面的范围,以及各部分之间的过渡条件。六个案例涵盖了证据生成、政策进程、能力加强和基于权利的倡导,并在两个方面进行了评估。有三个发现。在该机构的实践中,共同创造在产生知识的领域是实质性的,而在拥有权威的领域则是薄弱的。在6个案例中,有4个案例的议程基本相同,没有一个案例的财政资源相同。它在研究、政策参与和倡导之间的过渡中失败,而不是在这些过渡中失败,在那些既没有设计、也没有评估、也没有记录的时刻失败。共同创造的领域在它们可以实现的维度上有系统的不同,社区领导只有在基于权利的倡导中才具有实质性。我们借鉴了关于治理、资金、社区角色、转型和评估的实践指导,并说明了单一机构内部综合无法建立的东西。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书