Umeå University's logo

umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Co-creation methods for public health research — characteristics, benefits, and challenges: a Health CASCADE scoping review
School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, Scotland, G4 0BA, UK.
School of Business, Social and Decision Sciences, Constructor University, Bremen, Germany.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0693-570x
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Show others and affiliations
2025 (English)In: BMC Medical Research Methodology, E-ISSN 1471-2288, Vol. 25, no 1, article id 60Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Co-creation engages diverse stakeholders, including marginalized populations, in collaborative problem-solving to enhance engagement and develop contextually appropriate solutions. It is increasingly recognized as a way to democratize research and improve the impact of interventions, services, and policies. However, the lack of synthesized evidence on co-creation methods limits methodological rigor and the establishment of best practices. This review aimed to identify co-creation methods in academic literature and analyze their characteristics, target groups, and associated benefits and challenges.

Methods: This scoping review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. The search was conducted in the Health CASCADE database v1.5 (including CINAHL, PubMed, and 17 additional databases via ProQuest) from January 1970 to March 2022. Data was aggregated and summarized, with qualitative data analyzed using Braun and Clarke's six-phase thematic analysis approach.

Results: The review included 266 articles, identifying 248 distinct co-creation methods published between 1998 and 2022. Most methods were rooted in participatory paradigms (147 methods), with 49 methods derived from co-approaches like co-creation, co-design, and co-production, and 11 from community-based health promotion and action research. Methods were applied across 40 target populations, including children, adults, and marginalized groups. Many methods (62.3%) were delivered face-to-face, with 40 articles incorporating digital tools. Thematic analysis revealed nine benefits, such as enhanced creativity, empowerment, and improved communication, and six challenges, including resource constraints and systemic and structural barriers.

Conclusion: This review emphasizes the importance of robust documentation and analysis of co-creation methods to inform their application in public health. Findings support the development of collaborative co-creation processes that are responsive to the needs of diverse populations, thereby enhancing the overall effectiveness and cultural sensitivity of the outcomes. This review highlights the potential of co-creation methods to promote equity and inclusion while emphasizing the importance of evaluating and selecting methods tailored to specific objectives, offering a critical resource for planning, conducting, and evaluating co-creation projects.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BioMed Central (BMC), 2025. Vol. 25, no 1, article id 60
Keywords [en]
Co-creation, Co-design, Co-production, Participatory, Methods, Scoping review, Public health
National Category
Other Humanities Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy Public Health, Global Health and Social Medicine
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-236385DOI: 10.1186/s12874-025-02514-4ISI: 001439671000001PubMedID: 40050729Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-86000681378OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-236385DiVA, id: diva2:1943861
Funder
EU, Horizon 2020, 956501Available from: 2025-03-12 Created: 2025-03-12 Last updated: 2025-04-28Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(1840 kB)26 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 1840 kBChecksum SHA-512
2f784b874624d6cc53efe5a4133fab173e3bcc75627029c1989f6b2f842688619ebc5b553ca2d8f26ad36ba7052965376ad9a11d0fa1b79a2ffebc930ea11373
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

An, Qingfan

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
An, Qingfan
By organisation
Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation
In the same journal
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Other HumanitiesHealth Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health EconomyPublic Health, Global Health and Social Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 27 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 367 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf