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

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, serv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Agnello, Danielle Marie, Anand Kumar, Vinayak, An, Qingfan, de Boer, Janneke, Delfmann, Lea Rahel, Longworth, Giuliana R., Loisel, Quentin Emile Armand, McCaffrey, Lauren, Steiner, Artur, Chastin, Sebastien F. M.
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2025
País:España
Institución:Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya)
Repositorio:Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya
OAI Identifier:oai:dnet:recercat____::e81c6d734c3cb50595be9413b355cc0f
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14342/6263
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02514-4
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Salut pública
Co-creació
Evaluació
Revisió
id ES_3e2587cfbf2d1d3d274076fc3825ed8a
oai_identifier_str oai:dnet:recercat____::e81c6d734c3cb50595be9413b355cc0f
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Co-creation methods for public health research - characteristics, benefits, and challenges: a Health CASCADE scoping reviewAgnello, Danielle MarieAnand Kumar, VinayakAn, Qingfande Boer, JannekeDelfmann, Lea RahelLongworth, Giuliana R.Loisel, Quentin Emile ArmandMcCaffrey, LaurenSteiner, ArturChastin, Sebastien F. M.Salut públicaCo-creacióEvaluacióRevisióBackground 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 coapproaches 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.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionBMCUniversitat Ramon Llull. Facultat de Psicologia, Ciències de l'Educació i de l'Esport Blanquerna2025info:eu-repo/semantics/article28https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14342/6263https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02514-4reponame:Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunyainstname:Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya)InglésBMC Medical Research Methodology, 25:60 (2025)info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EU/H2020/Grant agreement No. 956501© L'autor/aAttribution 4.0 Internationalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:dnet:recercat____::e81c6d734c3cb50595be9413b355cc0f2026-05-29T05:05:01Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Co-creation methods for public health research - characteristics, benefits, and challenges: a Health CASCADE scoping review
title Co-creation methods for public health research - characteristics, benefits, and challenges: a Health CASCADE scoping review
spellingShingle Co-creation methods for public health research - characteristics, benefits, and challenges: a Health CASCADE scoping review
Agnello, Danielle Marie
Salut pública
Co-creació
Evaluació
Revisió
title_short Co-creation methods for public health research - characteristics, benefits, and challenges: a Health CASCADE scoping review
title_full Co-creation methods for public health research - characteristics, benefits, and challenges: a Health CASCADE scoping review
title_fullStr Co-creation methods for public health research - characteristics, benefits, and challenges: a Health CASCADE scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Co-creation methods for public health research - characteristics, benefits, and challenges: a Health CASCADE scoping review
title_sort Co-creation methods for public health research - characteristics, benefits, and challenges: a Health CASCADE scoping review
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Agnello, Danielle Marie
Anand Kumar, Vinayak
An, Qingfan
de Boer, Janneke
Delfmann, Lea Rahel
Longworth, Giuliana R.
Loisel, Quentin Emile Armand
McCaffrey, Lauren
Steiner, Artur
Chastin, Sebastien F. M.
author Agnello, Danielle Marie
author_facet Agnello, Danielle Marie
Anand Kumar, Vinayak
An, Qingfan
de Boer, Janneke
Delfmann, Lea Rahel
Longworth, Giuliana R.
Loisel, Quentin Emile Armand
McCaffrey, Lauren
Steiner, Artur
Chastin, Sebastien F. M.
author_role author
author2 Anand Kumar, Vinayak
An, Qingfan
de Boer, Janneke
Delfmann, Lea Rahel
Longworth, Giuliana R.
Loisel, Quentin Emile Armand
McCaffrey, Lauren
Steiner, Artur
Chastin, Sebastien F. M.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universitat Ramon Llull. Facultat de Psicologia, Ciències de l'Educació i de l'Esport Blanquerna
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Salut pública
Co-creació
Evaluació
Revisió
topic Salut pública
Co-creació
Evaluació
Revisió
description 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 coapproaches 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.
publishDate 2025
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2025
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14342/6263
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02514-4
url https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14342/6263
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02514-4
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv BMC Medical Research Methodology, 25:60 (2025)
info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EU/H2020/Grant agreement No. 956501
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv © L'autor/a
Attribution 4.0 International
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv © L'autor/a
Attribution 4.0 International
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 28
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv BMC
publisher.none.fl_str_mv BMC
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya
instname:Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya)
instname_str Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya)
reponame_str Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya
collection Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869406506996203520
score 15,811543

Similares en LA Referencia