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

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.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: Firstly, PubMed and CINAHL databases were screened for articles introducing original implementation and evaluation frameworks for public health interventions. Backwards snowballing techniques were applied to the included papers. Secondly, identified frameworks were classified and relevant data extracted, including steps and constructs present in the frameworks. Lastly, recommendations were derived by conducting thematic analysis on the included frameworks. RESULTS: Thirty frameworks were identified and data related to their nature and scope extracted. The frameworks' prominent steps and constructs were also retrieved. Recommendations related to implementation and evaluation in the context of co-creation were included. CONCLUSION: When engaging in co-creation, we recommend including implementation considerations from an early stage and suggest adopting a systems thinking as a way to explore multiple levels of influence, contextual settings and systems from an early planning stage. We highlight the importance of partnering with stakeholders and suggest applying an evaluation design that is iterative and cyclical, which pays particular attention to the experience of the engaged co-creators.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review within the Scopus and PubMed databases, a Google Scholar search, and a manual search in two grey literature databases related to participatory research. We further conducted eight interviews with first authors, randomly selected from included studies, to validate and enrich the systematic review findings. RESULTS: Through our review, we identified a total of twenty-two studies conducted in twenty-four LMIC countries. Majority of the interventions were designed directly within the LMIC setting. Aside from one, all studies were published between 2019 and 2023. Most studies adopted a co-creation approach, while some reported on the use of co-production, co-design, and co-development, combined either with community-based participatory research, participatory action research or citizen science. Among the most reported implementation barriers, we found the challenge of understanding and accounting for systemic conditions, such as the individual's socioeconomic status and concerns related to funding constraints and length of the process. Several studies described the importance of creating a safe space, relying on local resources, and involving existing stakeholders in the process from the development stage throughout, including future and potential implementors. High relevance was also given to the performance of a contextual and/or needs assessment and careful tailoring of strategies and methods. CONCLUSION: This study provides a systematic overview of previously conducted studies and of reported implementation barriers and facilitators. It identifies implementation barriers such as the setting's systemic conditions, the socioeconomic status and funding constrains along with facilitators such as the involvement of local stakeholders and future implementors throughout, the tailoring of the process to the population of interest and participants and contextual assessment. By incorporating review and interview findings, the study aims to provide practical insights and recommendations for guiding future research and policy.