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

An, Qingfan; Sandlund, Marlene; Agnello, Danielle Marie; McCaffrey, Lauren; Chastin, Sebastien; Helleday, Ragnberth; Wadell, Karin

doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2023.107193

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, the features of digital games were more important than their format. Digital games of all types were found to be effective if co-created, 35 , 36 immersive 37 , 38 and personalized, 25 by considering all age groups and mental health problems. 22 Furthermore, digital games decreased the symptomatology of young people if pinpointing a specific disease like depression or anxiety, and not mental health in general.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous research confirms the role co-creation plays in the success of health-related interventions since the latter are tailored on end-users’ needs with cultural, generational and socio-demographical fit. 35 , 36 In this line, games should use a user-centric approach, with iterative feedback, participatory design, and end-user validation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effectiveness of digital games promoting young people's mental health: A review of reviews

Vié,

Govindin-Ramassamy,

Thellier

et al. 2024

DIGITAL HEALTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Digital games are a popular form of entertainment for youth. They are often used as a therapy for psychological problems, a mental health promotion intervention, and a preventative measure. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been conducted to assess the effectiveness of mental health-related digital games. However, a synthesis considering all evaluation results to inform their development is missing. Methods We performed a review of reviews to synthetize results of previous research to describe the impact of digital games on the mental health of young people aged <30 years old. We considered systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2012 and 2022. Searches were conducted in Scopus, Google Scholar, Pubmed, and Cochrane library systematic reviews (CENTRAL) during October 2023. Results Our final selection included 10 systematic reviews and meta-analyses on interventions targeting youth of both sexes aged 2–29 years old across the world. In total, 218 interventions were identified. Selected articles reported different types of games, e.g., active and non-active video games, virtual reality games, serious games. Not all digital games were conscientiously evaluated, but, in general, their impact on mental health was positive. Regarding the quality, 5 studies were of high quality, 3 of moderate quality and 2 of low quality. Conclusions Overall, elements of gamification were well-accepted, but they lacked assessment through rigorous experimental conditions. Digital games for mental health are promising, but in order to be consistently effective in promoting young people's mental health and prevent psychological diseases, they should present specific features.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of digital games promoting young people's mental health: A review of reviews

Vié,

Govindin-Ramassamy,

Thellier

et al. 2024

DIGITAL HEALTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Co-creation has increasing traction in terms of involving stakeholders, but the extent to which this creates a fundamental change in practices is still unclear, and there is a strong potential that it will remain tokenistic [11]. Major challenges remain and need to be confronted to make co-creation trustworthy and unlock its full potential [1,2,[10][11][12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping the Co-Creation Landscape and Exposing the Methodological Gap between Researchers and Practitioners: A Health CASCADE Systematic Methods Overview (Preprint)

Agnello,

Balaskas,

Steiner

et al. 2024

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Co-creation has emerged as a strategy for cultivating collaboration and driving innovation across diverse fields, proving particularly promising in addressing complex and wicked problems in public health. There is a growing recognition of co-creation as a valuable methodology, yet, to date there is no standardized methodology or recommendations for methods appropriate for use in co-creation. While some studies have examined specific methods, a comprehensive overview of co-creation methods is still lacking, hindering conceptual clarity and collective understanding of methods appropriate for diverse contexts and research objectives. OBJECTIVE To enhance transparency and understanding about how to co-create, this study aimed to comprehensively and systematically assess methods used in co-creation. METHODS To ensure a thorough approach, the Systematic Methods Overview approach was applied. This was completed in two parallel processes, one within the Health CASCADE Co-Creation Database, and one within grey literature. To filter out irrelevant information, an artificial intelligence-assisted recursive search strategy and a two-step screening process were applied. Method names were extracted from the included literature and combined for analysis. We conducted textual analysis, comparative analysis, and bibliometric analyses to assess the content and relationship between the extracted methods and the methodological underpinnings of the included sources. RESULTS We examined a total of 2627 academic articles and grey literature sources. The literature primarily represented fields such as health sciences, medical research, and health services research, and the dominant research methodologies were the co-approaches (co-creation, co-design, co-production), the participatory research methodologies, and public and patient involvement. We extracted and analyzed 956 co-creation methods, with only 10.2% (97/956) of the methods overlapping between those found in academic literature and grey literature. The most frequent methods in academic literature were surveys, focus group, photo voice, and group discussion, while in grey literature they were world café, focus group, role playing, and persona. Among the methods extracted from academic literature, 91.3% (230/252) were found to co-occur, with a predominant combination of multiple qualitative methods. CONCLUSIONS This study produced a high-quality systematic inventory of co-creation methods. Our analysis of the sourced methods reveals a methodological gap between researchers and practitioners and offers insights into the relative prevalence of individual methods, and how they are combined. This study initiates the process of bridging this methodological gap by fostering an increased understanding and recognition of co-creation methods and their relative presence in both research and practice. Bridging this gap is crucial for advancing co-creation as a reliable methodological approach. This systematic exploration of knowledge of the various methods applied in co-creation can facilitate individuals embarking on a co-creation process, or similar participatory methodologies, by illuminating the diverse landscape of methods used in co-creation.

show abstract

“…Much research has been conducted on how to achieve and improve social impact. A necessary step to achieve it is co-creation with diverse citizens (An et al, 2023;Utter et al, 2021). The communicative methodology (CM) was co-created 32 years ago with this purpose.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimal Methodology for Addressing the Social Impact Component within Project Proposals and Curriculum Vitae

Gutiérrez-Fernández,

Zubiri-Esnaola,

López de Aguileta

et al. 2023

RIMCIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The scientific and grey literature have highlighted the increasing relevance of the social impact of research. More and more, funding and evaluation agencies are using social impact as a required criterion when assessing the excellence of research proposals and researchers’ CV. However, research has identified elemental confusions about what social impact is in most research proposals, CVs and consulting companies. Based on the communicative methodology which co-led the creation and elaboration of the priorities of social impact and co-creation, the study presented in this paper includes the knowledge co-created along years of dialogues with scientists and citizens and a documentary analysis of four official documents on social impact and researcher evaluation. Results identify the first scientific six guidelines to date on how to include researchers’ actual or potential social impact in the research proposals and CVs1) To avoid confusing social impact with dissemination or transference; 2) To identify the concrete social impact of the specific scientific knowledge created by the authors; 3) To precise the concrete indicators of each social impact; 4) To specify the concrete sources; 5) To identify the interactive social impact; 6) To include the potential social impact.

show abstract

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

Cited by 3 publications

References 55 publications

Effectiveness of digital games promoting young people's mental health: A review of reviews

Effectiveness of digital games promoting young people's mental health: A review of reviews

Mapping the Co-Creation Landscape and Exposing the Methodological Gap between Researchers and Practitioners: A Health CASCADE Systematic Methods Overview (Preprint)

Optimal Methodology for Addressing the Social Impact Component within Project Proposals and Curriculum Vitae

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About