Exploring the application of co-design to transformative service research

Hurley, Erin; Trischler, Jakob; Dietrich, Timo

doi:10.1108/jsm-09-2017-0321

Cited by 49 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(102 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Collaborations with stakeholders allow program developers to tap in to the unique perspectives and insights held by various stakeholders [26] whose interests are varied. Discrepancies between expert and user views exist in the context of parent alcohol programs [94], suggesting expert designed programs may be failing to meet the unique needs of parents. Future program efforts should seek to include multiple stakeholder perspectives beyond the end user group to identify and acknowledge multiple views and resolve possible conflicts and discrepancies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, it is suggested that researchers consider novel methods that allow stakeholders to actively contribute during the design process as opposed to being passive participants. For example, empowering stakeholders through active collaborations such as co-design methods that provide stakeholder with the tools and a voice to design behaviour change programs of value to them [94].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review of parent based programs to prevent or reduce alcohol consumption in adolescents

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAdolescent alcohol consumption is an issue of ongoing concern and programs targeting parents have been identified as an important component in minimizing and preventing alcohol related harm in adolescents. This paper aims to evaluate existing parent based alcohol education programs with a focus on understanding parent specific outcomes including parental attitudes, parent-child communication, alcohol specific rule setting and parental monitoring; study quality, the extent of stakeholder engagement in program design and the level of theory application.MethodA systematic review of electronic databases EBSCO, Emerald, ProQuest, PubMed, Ovid, ScienceDirect, Taylor and Francis and Web of Science was conducted from database inception to August 2019. A total of 4288 unique records were retrieved from the eight databases. Studies were included if they evaluated school based alcohol education programs that included a parent component and detailed outcome measures associated with parent data. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) quality assessment tool.ResultsIn total 17 studies qualified for assessment, detailing 13 individual parent programs. Of these, ten programs demonstrated positive effects in at least one parent reported outcome measure. Stakeholder engagement during the design of programs was lacking with the majority of programs. One third of the programs did not report theory use and when theory was used reporting was weak with three programs applying theory, five testing theory and none building theory. According to the EPHPP tool, overall ten programs were rated as weak, three as moderate and none as strong.ConclusionFuture studies are recommended to further enhance the effectiveness of parental programs by improving study quality, increasing stakeholder engagement and increasing the level of theory application and reporting.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of parent based programs to prevent or reduce alcohol consumption in adolescents

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Study 1 sought to examine the usefulness of ethnographic fieldwork as a form of “empathy building” employed to overcome challenges associated with the front-end stages of the co-design process. Previous studies (Dietrich et al, 2017; Hurley et al, 2018) reported conducting literature reviews to complete the resourcing for their co-design studies. However, due to underrepresentation of BoP citizens in the literature (Martin & Hill, 2011), and BoP citizen heterogeneity (Prahalad, 2012), adopting this approach was unlikely to be effective.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-designing social marketing programs with “bottom of the pyramid” citizens

Schmidtke¹,

Rundle‐Thiele

Kubacki

et al. 2020

International Journal of Market Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The significant challenges associated with adapting and delivering the co-design process with Bottom of the Pyramid (BoP) citizens are considered in this article, which tests a new “Empathy Building” step within the Trischler et al. seven-step co-design process model. A sequential, three-study mixed-method research design was applied to co-design a social marketing program with BoP citizens and experts, focusing on the problem of school dropout in a community in South Africa. Study 1 undertook the empathy-building step of the co-design process, which involved a 4-month ethnography in a community in South Africa. This study informed several subsequent co-design steps, including resourcing, planning, recruiting, and sensitizing. Study 2 engaged 38 participants (schoolchildren and parents) in a co-design session, challenging them to create a social marketing program for them and people like them. Study 3 delivered an evaluation session with seven key experts. This article contributes to understanding by offering a process to demonstrate how three studies used the (enhanced) co-design framework to provide a solution for a social issue, namely, prevention of school dropout. Finally, this article outlines how co-design can overcome challenges faced to work with BoP citizens through the addition of ethnography and involvement of experts at the fuzzy back-end of the co-design process to examine program implementation feasibility.

show abstract

“…Collaboration represented by the prefix "co" implying partnership and equality Union/collaboration of stakeholders (researchers and non-researchers) [83,84];"mutual knowledge exchange" [44]; "common understanding" [66]; shared vision and decision-making; meaningful engagement with participants [47,62]; equal voice and a collective vision [54,60] Activity Ideation "generate" [18,83], "explore" [85]; "brainstorm ideas" [49], "provoke discussion" [44,78]; reflect on how to meet community needs, solve problems and improve service delivery [58,61,62,86,87] Activity Designing taking of ideas (generated in the co-ideation phase); planning of the production of concrete outcomes (products, services or programs) [41,66] Activity Implementing participation of stakeholders in the delivery of services and programs [42] Activity Evaluating usability testing of prototypes and products [47] and state actors and the public to assess the quality of public services [70,86]; provide constructive feedback on services, interventions or products to researchers [56]; feedback may be collected through the administration of pre-and post-initiative questionnaires or engagement in focus groups [53,59]; feedback is collected and used to improve services [56]…”

Section: Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the Co-Creation of New Knowledge? A Content Analysis and Proposed Definition for Health Interventions

Pearce

Maple

Shakeshaft

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Co-creation of new knowledge has the potential to speed up the discovery and application of new knowledge into practice. However, the progress of co-creation is hindered by a lack of definitional clarity and inconsistent use of terminology. The aim of this paper is to propose a new standardised definition of co-creation of new knowledge for health interventions based on the existing co-creation literature. The authors completed a systematic search of electronic databases and Google Scholar using 10 of the most frequently used co-creation-related keywords to identify relevant studies. Qualitative content analysis was performed, and two reviewers independently tested the categorisation of papers. Of the 6571 papers retrieved, 42 papers met the inclusion criteria. Examination of the current literature on co-creation demonstrated how the variability of co-creation-related terms can be reduced to four collaborative processes: co-ideation, co-design, co-implementation and co-evaluation. Based on these four processes, a new definition of co-creation of new knowledge for health interventions is proposed. The analysis revealed the need to address the conceptual ambiguity of the definition of “co-creation of new knowledge”. The proposed new definition may help to resolve the current definitional issues relating to co-creation, allowing researchers and policymakers to progress the development of co-creation of new knowledge in research and practice.

show abstract

Exploring the application of co-design to transformative service research

Cited by 49 publications

References 50 publications

A systematic review of parent based programs to prevent or reduce alcohol consumption in adolescents

A systematic review of parent based programs to prevent or reduce alcohol consumption in adolescents

Co-designing social marketing programs with “bottom of the pyramid” citizens

What is the Co-Creation of New Knowledge? A Content Analysis and Proposed Definition for Health Interventions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About