Systematic Review of Contemporary Theories Used for Co-creation, Co-design and Co-production in Public Health.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to systematically identify and summarize the contemporary theories and theoretical frameworks used for co-creation, co-design and co-production in public health research. METHODS: The reporting of this systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Given substantial interest in and application of co-creation, co-design and co-production, we searched PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and APA PsycINFO from 2012 to March-April 2022. A quality assessment and data extraction for theory content was performed. RESULTS: Of the 3763 unique references identified through the comprehensive search strategy, 10 articles were included in the review: four articles named co-creation, two articles named co-creation and co-design, two articles named co-production and co-design, and two articles named co-design. Empowerment Theory was employed by two articles, whereas other theories (n = 5) or frameworks (n = 3) were employed by one article each. For the quality assessment, eight articles received a strong rating and two articles received a moderate rating. CONCLUSION: There is little indication of theory applications for the approaches of co-creation, co-design and co-production in public health since 2012, given 10 articles were included in this review. Yet, the theories described in these 10 articles can be useful for developing such co-approaches in future public health research.

Establishing a Health CASCADE-Curated Open-Access Database to Consolidate Knowledge About Co-Creation: Novel Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Methodology Based on Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Co-creation is an approach that aims to democratize research and bridge the gap between research and practice, but the potential fragmentation of knowledge about co-creation has hindered progress. A comprehensive database of published literature from multidisciplinary sources can address this fragmentation through the integration of diverse perspectives, identification and dissemination of best practices, and increase clarity about co-creation. However, two considerable challenges exist. First, there is uncertainty about co-creation terminology, making it difficult to identify relevant literature. Second, the exponential growth of scientific publications has led to an overwhelming amount of literature that surpasses the human capacity for a comprehensive review. These challenges hinder progress in co-creation research and underscore the need for a novel methodology to consolidate and investigate the literature. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to synthesize knowledge about co-creation across various fields through the development and application of an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted selection process. The ultimate goal of this database was to provide stakeholders interested in co-creation with relevant literature. METHODS: We created a novel methodology for establishing a curated database. To accommodate the variation in terminology, we used a broad definition of co-creation that encompassed the essence of existing definitions. To filter out irrelevant information, an AI-assisted selection process was used. In addition, we conducted bibliometric analyses and quality control procedures to assess content and accuracy. Overall, this approach allowed us to develop a robust and reliable database that serves as a valuable resource for stakeholders interested in co-creation. RESULTS: The final version of the database included 13,501 papers, which are indexed in Zenodo and accessible in an open-access downloadable format. The quality assessment revealed that 20.3% (140/688) of the database likely contained irrelevant material, whereas the methodology captured 91% (58/64) of the relevant literature. Participatory and variations of the term co-creation were the most frequent terms in the title and abstracts of included literature. The predominant source journals included health sciences, sustainability, environmental sciences, medical research, and health services research. CONCLUSIONS: This study produced a high-quality, open-access database about co-creation. The study demonstrates that it is possible to perform a systematic review selection process on a fragmented concept using human-AI collaboration. Our unified concept of co-creation includes the co-approaches (co-creation, co-design, and co-production), forms of participatory research, and user involvement. Our analysis of authorship, citations, and source landscape highlights the potential lack of collaboration among co-creation researchers and underscores the need for future investigation into the different research methodologies. The database provides a resource for relevant literature and can support rapid literature reviews about co-creation. It also offers clarity about the current co-creation landscape and helps to address barriers that researchers may face when seeking evidence about co-creation.

Adult co-creators' emotional and psychological experiences of the co-creation process: a Health CASCADE scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing investment in the use of co-creation, reflected by an increase in co-created products, services, and interventions. At the same time, a growing recognition of the significance of co-creators' experience can be detected but there is a gap in the aggregation of the literature with regard to experience. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review is to uncover the breadth of existing empirical research on co-creation experience, how it has been defined and assessed, and its key emotional and psychological characteristics in the context of co-created products, services, or interventions among adults. METHODS: The development of the search strategy was guided by the research question, Arksey, and O'Malley's scoping review methodology guidelines, and through collaboration with members of the Health CASCADE consortium. The results of the search and the study inclusion process will be reported in full and presented both narratively and by use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram. Comprehensive searches of relevant electronic databases (e.g. Scopus) will be conducted to identify relevant papers. Snowball searches to identify additional papers through included full-text papers will be done using the artificial intelligence tool, namely, Connected Papers. All review steps will involve at least two reviewers. Studies in English, Dutch, Chinese, Spanish, and French, published from the year 1970 onwards, will be considered. Microsoft Excel software will be used to record and chart extracted data. DISCUSSION: The resulting scoping review could provide useful insights into adult co-creators' experience of participating in the co-creation process. An increased understanding of the role of emotional and psychological experiences of participating in co-creation processes may help to inform the co-creation process and lead to potential benefits for the co-creators and co-created outcome. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: 10.5281/zenodo.7665851.

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.

Sustainable Development for Mobile Health Apps Using the Human-Centered Design Process.

Well-documented scientific evidence indicates that mobile health (mHealth) apps can improve the quality of life, relieve symptoms, and restore health for patients. In addition to improving patients' health outcomes, mHealth apps reduce health care use and the cost burdens associated with disease management. Currently, patients and health care providers have a wide variety of choices among commercially available mHealth apps. However, due to the high resource costs and low user adoption of mHealth apps, the cost-benefit relationship remains controversial. When compared to traditional expert-driven approaches, applying human-centered design (HCD) may result in more useable, acceptable, and effective mHealth apps. In this paper, we summarize current HCD practices in mHealth development studies and make recommendations to improve the sustainability of mHealth. These recommendations include consideration of factors regarding culture norms, iterative evaluations on HCD practice, use of novelty in mHealth app, and consideration of privacy and reliability across the entire HCD process. Additionally, we suggest a sociotechnical lens toward HCD practices to promote the sustainability of mHealth apps. Future research should consider standardizing the HCD practice to help mHealth researchers and developers avoid barriers associated with inadequate HCD practices.

A scoping review of co-creation practice in the development of non-pharmacological interventions for people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A health CASCADE study.

BACKGROUND: Incorporating co-creation processes may improve the quality of outcome interventions. However, there is a lack of synthesis of co-creation practices in the development of Non-Pharmacological Interventions (NPIs) for people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), that could inform future co-creation practice and research for rigorously improving the quality of care. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to examine the co-creation practice used when developing NPIs for people with COPD. METHODS: This review followed Arksey and O'Malley scoping review framework and was reported according to the PRISMA-ScR framework. The search included PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science Core Collection. Studies reporting on the process and/or analysis of applying co-creation practice in developing NPIs for people with COPD were included. RESULTS: 13 articles complied with the inclusion criteria. Limited creative methods were reported in the studies. Facilitators described in the co-creation practices included administrative preparations, diversity of stakeholders, cultural considerations, employment of creative methods, creation of an appreciative environment, and digital assistance. Challenges around the physical limitations of patients, the absence of key stakeholder opinions, a prolonged process, recruitment, and digital illiteracy of co-creators were listed. Most of the studies did not report including implementation considerations as a discussion point in their co-creation workshops. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based co-creation in COPD care is critical for guiding future practice and improving the quality of care delivered by NPIs. This review provides evidence for improving systematic and reproducible co-creation. Future research should focus on systematically planning, conducting, evaluating, and reporting co-creation practices in COPD care.

Stakeholder Mapping on the Development of Digital Health Interventions for Self-Management Among Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in China.

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a progressive lung disease consisting of chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Digital Health Interventions (DHIs) can improve COPD patients' self-management. However, the market penetration of DHIs is lower than expected. Using stakeholder mapping, healthcare providers identified opportunities for design and development of sustainable DHIs. Two different stakeholder maps were identified. These maps demonstrated the importance of utilizing structured mapping techniques to understand roles of different stakeholders, and addressing regulatory and practice needs to ultimately support patient self-management.