Mapping definitions of co‐production and co‐design in health and social care: A systematic scoping review providing lessons for the future

Masterson, Daniel; Josefsson, Kristina Areskoug; Robert, Glenn; Nylander, Elisabeth; Kjellström, Sofia

doi:10.1111/hex.13470

Cited by 92 publications

(124 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with other reviews exploring co-production in health and social care research [5,53], we identified growth in publications using co-production in care home settings over the last decade. Whereas co-production research conducted in the health field began to appear as early as the 1990s, [5] the earliest study identified in this review was published in 2013.…”

Section: Wider Contextmentioning

confidence: 53%

Approaches to co-production of research in care homes: a scoping review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Using the technique of co-production to develop research is considered good practice. Co-production involves the public, practitioners and academics working together as equals throughout a research project. Co-production may help develop alternative ways of delivering care for older adults that are acceptable to those who live and work in care homes. However, guidance about applying co-production approaches in this context is lacking. This scoping review aims to map co-production approaches used in care homes for older adults in previous research to support the inclusion of residents and care staff as equal collaborators in future studies. Methods A scoping review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. Seven electronic databases were searched for peer-reviewed primary studies using co-production approaches in care home settings for older adults. Studies were independently screened against eligibility criteria by two reviewers. Citation searching was completed. Data relating to study characteristics, co-production approaches used, including any barriers and facilitators, was charted by one reviewer and checked by another. Data was summarised using tables and diagrams with an accompanying narrative description. A collaborator group of care home and health service representatives were involved in the interpretation of the findings from their perspectives. Results 19 studies were selected for inclusion. A diverse range of approaches to co-production and engaging key stakeholders in care home settings were identified. 11 studies reported barriers and 13 reported facilitators affecting the co-production process. Barriers and facilitators to building relationships and achieving inclusive, equitable and reciprocal co-production were identified in alignment with the five NIHR principles. Practical considerations were also identified as potential barriers and facilitators. Conclusion The components of co-production approaches, barriers and facilitators identified should inform the design of future research using co-production approaches in care homes. Future studies should be explicit in reporting what is meant by co-production, the methods used to support co-production, and steps taken to enact the principles of co-production. Sharing of key learning is required to support this field to develop. Evaluation of co-production approaches, including participants’ experiences of taking part in co-production processes, are areas for future research in care home settings.

show abstract

Section: Wider Contextmentioning

confidence: 53%

Approaches to co-production of research in care homes: a scoping review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…'Ideal co-design' includes an equal partnership at all research stages that embraces the principles of elevating lived experience, co-governance, equity-centric, diversity, inclusion and capability building. 10,12 Regardless of reporting, co-design was incorporated to varying degrees across all research stages and principles, with challenges presented by lack of consistent reporting of a co-design definition or approach, consumer involvement and adherence to principles. Indeed, fewer than half of the studies included for this scoping review defined codesign (or similar method used), and there was no unifying definition across any of the studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10 Generally, definitions refer to co-design as a participatory approach that engages all potential end users (e.g., service providers and service users) to design something of 'value' (context dependent), 11 whereas others include the quality of these relationships through principles such as equity, power and trust. 10 Following recent work by two authors (consumer, A. C., and researcher, A. Y.)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co‐designing nutrition interventions with consumers: A scoping review

Meloncelli

Young

Christoffersen

et al. 2022

J Human Nutrition Diet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is little known about nutrition intervention research involving consumer co-design. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and synthesise the existing evidence on the current use and extent of consumer co-design in nutrition interventions. Methods: This scoping review is in line with the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute using an adapted 2weekSR approach. We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Cochrane. Only studies that included consumers in the co-design and met the 'Collaborate' or 'Empower' levels of the International Association of Public Participation's Public Participation Spectrum were included. Studies were synthesised according to two main concepts: (1) co-design for (2) nutrition interventions. Results: The initial search yielded 8157 articles, of which 19 studies were included (comprising 29 articles). The studies represented a range of intervention types and participants from seven countries. Sixteen studies were published in the past 5 years. Co-design was most often used for intervention development, and only two studies reported a partnership with consumers across all stages of research. Overall, consumer involvement was not well documented. No preferred co-design framework or approach was reported across the various studies. Conclusions: Consumer co-design for nutrition interventions has become more frequent in recent years, but genuine partnerships with consumers across all stages of nutrition intervention research remain uncommon. There is an opportunity to improve the reporting of consumer involvement in co-design and enable equal partnerships with consumers in nutrition research.

show abstract

“…The team, therefore, co-created and colearned. However, in terms of efficiency, it could have helped to first set shared values for the project, as Masterson (2022) noticed that shared values are fundamental for co-creating. Still, all members expressed their joy during the process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%