Publications
2024
Chrifou, Rabab; Anselma, Manou; Christens, Brian D; Israel, Barbara A; Jurkowski, Janine M; Perkins, Douglas D; Zimmerman, Marc A; Altenburg, Teatske M
Actualizing child and adolescent empowerment in participatory action research for health promotion: a six-element framework Journal Article
In: International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, vol. 29, no. 1, 2024, ISSN: 2164-4527.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Ethics
@article{Chrifou2024,
title = {Actualizing child and adolescent empowerment in participatory action research for health promotion: a six-element framework},
author = {Rabab Chrifou and Manou Anselma and Brian D Christens and Barbara A Israel and Janine M Jurkowski and Douglas D Perkins and Marc A Zimmerman and Teatske M Altenburg},
doi = {10.1080/02673843.2024.2354907},
issn = {2164-4527},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-12-31},
urldate = {2024-12-31},
journal = {International Journal of Adolescence and Youth},
volume = {29},
number = {1},
publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
abstract = {Child and adolescent participation for health promotion can be realized through participatory action research (PAR). However, there is a lack of understanding regarding the concrete steps needed to actualize empowerment within PAR. We propose a framework that outlines six elements that need to be considered when designing a PAR study that strives to actualize child and adolescent empowerment. These are 1) Safeguarding the necessary resources; 2) Having high quality adult facilitation; 3) Enabling sense-making activities and 4) Investing in capacity building. These four elements make up an environment that may nourish children and adolescents’ social, emotional and cognitive development that may potentially lead to 5) Positive child and adolescent development and 6) Participatory competence. The proposed framework adopts a holistic approach by considering the lived reality of children and adolescents and their capabilities and characteristics. Future research is needed to assess the practical utility of the framework.},
keywords = {Ethics},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Child and adolescent participation for health promotion can be realized through participatory action research (PAR). However, there is a lack of understanding regarding the concrete steps needed to actualize empowerment within PAR. We propose a framework that outlines six elements that need to be considered when designing a PAR study that strives to actualize child and adolescent empowerment. These are 1) Safeguarding the necessary resources; 2) Having high quality adult facilitation; 3) Enabling sense-making activities and 4) Investing in capacity building. These four elements make up an environment that may nourish children and adolescents’ social, emotional and cognitive development that may potentially lead to 5) Positive child and adolescent development and 6) Participatory competence. The proposed framework adopts a holistic approach by considering the lived reality of children and adolescents and their capabilities and characteristics. Future research is needed to assess the practical utility of the framework.
Messiha, Katrina; Altenburg, Teatske M; Schreier, Margrit; Longworth, Giuliana R; Thomas, Nicole; Chastin, Sebastien; Chinapaw, Mai JM
Enriching the evidence base of co-creation research in public health with methodological principles of critical realism Journal Article
In: Critical Public Health, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 1-19, 2024, ISSN: 1469-3682.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Methodology
@article{Messiha2024,
title = {Enriching the evidence base of co-creation research in public health with methodological principles of critical realism},
author = {Katrina Messiha and Teatske M Altenburg and Margrit Schreier and Giuliana R Longworth and Nicole Thomas and Sebastien Chastin and Mai JM Chinapaw},
doi = {10.1080/09581596.2024.2371323},
issn = {1469-3682},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-12-31},
urldate = {2024-12-31},
journal = {Critical Public Health},
volume = {34},
number = {1},
pages = {1-19},
publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
abstract = {With the popularity of co-creation research in public health and other fields, there is a need to strengthen its evidence-base by developing a framework based on meta-theoretical principles. The lack of applying meta-theoretical principles in co-creation research impedes the theory- and evidence building. Critical realism seems a promising candidate for providing meta-theoretical principles to enrich the evidence base of co-creation research in public health. To this purpose we searched for relevant papers on critical realism methodological principles, clarified and subsequently applied such principles to a co-creation public health case study. We provide explanatory steps to apply five principles; 1) focusing on understanding an event, like childhood overweight, 2) exploring the broader structure and context surrounding the event, 3) constructing hypotheses about the underlying mechanism(s) of an event, 4) empirical testing to corroborate those hypotheses, and 5) using multiple methods and triangulation. Further, this study shows that critical realism can enrich co-creation research in public health by iteratively building theory and evidence following the five proposed principles.},
keywords = {Methodology},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
With the popularity of co-creation research in public health and other fields, there is a need to strengthen its evidence-base by developing a framework based on meta-theoretical principles. The lack of applying meta-theoretical principles in co-creation research impedes the theory- and evidence building. Critical realism seems a promising candidate for providing meta-theoretical principles to enrich the evidence base of co-creation research in public health. To this purpose we searched for relevant papers on critical realism methodological principles, clarified and subsequently applied such principles to a co-creation public health case study. We provide explanatory steps to apply five principles; 1) focusing on understanding an event, like childhood overweight, 2) exploring the broader structure and context surrounding the event, 3) constructing hypotheses about the underlying mechanism(s) of an event, 4) empirical testing to corroborate those hypotheses, and 5) using multiple methods and triangulation. Further, this study shows that critical realism can enrich co-creation research in public health by iteratively building theory and evidence following the five proposed principles.
Longworth, Giuliana R; Erikowa-Orighoye, Oritseweyinmi; Anieto, Ebuka M; Agnello, Danielle M; Zapata-Restrepo, Jorge R; Masquillier, Caroline; Giné-Garriga, Maria
In: Global Health, vol. 20, no. 1, 2024, ISSN: 1744-8603.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Implementation
@article{Longworth2024,
title = {Conducting co-creation for public health in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review and key informant perspectives on implementation barriers and facilitators},
author = {Giuliana R Longworth and Oritseweyinmi Erikowa-Orighoye and Ebuka M Anieto and Danielle M Agnello and Jorge R Zapata-Restrepo and Caroline Masquillier and Maria Giné-Garriga},
doi = {10.1186/s12992-024-01014-2},
issn = {1744-8603},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-12-00},
urldate = {2024-12-00},
journal = {Global Health},
volume = {20},
number = {1},
publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC},
abstract = {Background
There has been an increase in the use of co-creation for public health because of its claimed potential to increase an intervention’s impact, spark change and co-create knowledge. Still, little is reported on its use in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). This study offers a comprehensive overview of co-creation used in public-health-related interventions, including the interventions’ characteristics, and reported implementation barriers and facilitators.
Methods
We conducted a systematic review within the Scopus and PubMed databases, a Google Scholar search, and a manual search in two grey literature databases related to participatory research. We further conducted eight interviews with first authors, randomly selected from included studies, to validate and enrich the systematic review findings.
Results
Through our review, we identified a total of twenty-two studies conducted in twenty-four LMIC countries. Majority of the interventions were designed directly within the LMIC setting. Aside from one, all studies were published between 2019 and 2023. Most studies adopted a co-creation approach, while some reported on the use of co-production, co-design, and co-development, combined either with community-based participatory research, participatory action research or citizen science. Among the most reported implementation barriers, we found the challenge of understanding and accounting for systemic conditions, such as the individual’s socioeconomic status and concerns related to funding constraints and length of the process. Several studies described the importance of creating a safe space, relying on local resources, and involving existing stakeholders in the process from the development stage throughout, including future and potential implementors. High relevance was also given to the performance of a contextual and/or needs assessment and careful tailoring of strategies and methods.
Conclusion
This study provides a systematic overview of previously conducted studies and of reported implementation barriers and facilitators. It identifies implementation barriers such as the setting’s systemic conditions, the socioeconomic status and funding constrains along with facilitators such as the involvement of local stakeholders and future implementors throughout, the tailoring of the process to the population of interest and participants and contextual assessment. By incorporating review and interview findings, the study aims to provide practical insights and recommendations for guiding future research and policy.},
keywords = {Implementation},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Background
There has been an increase in the use of co-creation for public health because of its claimed potential to increase an intervention’s impact, spark change and co-create knowledge. Still, little is reported on its use in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). This study offers a comprehensive overview of co-creation used in public-health-related interventions, including the interventions’ characteristics, and reported implementation barriers and facilitators.
Methods
We conducted a systematic review within the Scopus and PubMed databases, a Google Scholar search, and a manual search in two grey literature databases related to participatory research. We further conducted eight interviews with first authors, randomly selected from included studies, to validate and enrich the systematic review findings.
Results
Through our review, we identified a total of twenty-two studies conducted in twenty-four LMIC countries. Majority of the interventions were designed directly within the LMIC setting. Aside from one, all studies were published between 2019 and 2023. Most studies adopted a co-creation approach, while some reported on the use of co-production, co-design, and co-development, combined either with community-based participatory research, participatory action research or citizen science. Among the most reported implementation barriers, we found the challenge of understanding and accounting for systemic conditions, such as the individual’s socioeconomic status and concerns related to funding constraints and length of the process. Several studies described the importance of creating a safe space, relying on local resources, and involving existing stakeholders in the process from the development stage throughout, including future and potential implementors. High relevance was also given to the performance of a contextual and/or needs assessment and careful tailoring of strategies and methods.
Conclusion
This study provides a systematic overview of previously conducted studies and of reported implementation barriers and facilitators. It identifies implementation barriers such as the setting’s systemic conditions, the socioeconomic status and funding constrains along with facilitators such as the involvement of local stakeholders and future implementors throughout, the tailoring of the process to the population of interest and participants and contextual assessment. By incorporating review and interview findings, the study aims to provide practical insights and recommendations for guiding future research and policy.
There has been an increase in the use of co-creation for public health because of its claimed potential to increase an intervention’s impact, spark change and co-create knowledge. Still, little is reported on its use in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). This study offers a comprehensive overview of co-creation used in public-health-related interventions, including the interventions’ characteristics, and reported implementation barriers and facilitators.
Methods
We conducted a systematic review within the Scopus and PubMed databases, a Google Scholar search, and a manual search in two grey literature databases related to participatory research. We further conducted eight interviews with first authors, randomly selected from included studies, to validate and enrich the systematic review findings.
Results
Through our review, we identified a total of twenty-two studies conducted in twenty-four LMIC countries. Majority of the interventions were designed directly within the LMIC setting. Aside from one, all studies were published between 2019 and 2023. Most studies adopted a co-creation approach, while some reported on the use of co-production, co-design, and co-development, combined either with community-based participatory research, participatory action research or citizen science. Among the most reported implementation barriers, we found the challenge of understanding and accounting for systemic conditions, such as the individual’s socioeconomic status and concerns related to funding constraints and length of the process. Several studies described the importance of creating a safe space, relying on local resources, and involving existing stakeholders in the process from the development stage throughout, including future and potential implementors. High relevance was also given to the performance of a contextual and/or needs assessment and careful tailoring of strategies and methods.
Conclusion
This study provides a systematic overview of previously conducted studies and of reported implementation barriers and facilitators. It identifies implementation barriers such as the setting’s systemic conditions, the socioeconomic status and funding constrains along with facilitators such as the involvement of local stakeholders and future implementors throughout, the tailoring of the process to the population of interest and participants and contextual assessment. By incorporating review and interview findings, the study aims to provide practical insights and recommendations for guiding future research and policy.
Longworth, Giuliana R; Goh, Kunshan; Agnello, Danielle M; Messiha, Katrina; Beeckman, Melanie; Zapata-Restrepo, Jorge R; Cardon, Greet; Chastin, Sebastien; Giné-Garriga, Maria
A review of implementation and evaluation frameworks for public health interventions to inform co-creation: a Health CASCADE study Journal Article
In: Health Res Policy Sys, vol. 22, no. 1, 2024, ISSN: 1478-4505.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Evaluation
@article{Longworth2024b,
title = {A review of implementation and evaluation frameworks for public health interventions to inform co-creation: a Health CASCADE study},
author = {Giuliana R Longworth and Kunshan Goh and Danielle M Agnello and Katrina Messiha and Melanie Beeckman and Jorge R Zapata-Restrepo and Greet Cardon and Sebastien Chastin and Maria Giné-Garriga},
doi = {10.1186/s12961-024-01126-6},
issn = {1478-4505},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-12-00},
urldate = {2024-12-00},
journal = {Health Res Policy Sys},
volume = {22},
number = {1},
publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC},
abstract = {Background
By including the needs and perspectives of relevant stakeholders, co-creation is seen as a promising approach for tackling complex public health problems. However, recommendations and guidance on how to plan and implement co-creation are lacking. By identifying and analysing existing implementation and evaluation frameworks for public health, this study aims to offer key recommendations for professional stakeholders and researchers wanting to adopt a co-creation approach to public health interventions.
Methods
Firstly, PubMed and CINAHL databases were screened for articles introducing original implementation and evaluation frameworks for public health interventions. Backwards snowballing techniques were applied to the included papers. Secondly, identified frameworks were classified and relevant data extracted, including steps and constructs present in the frameworks. Lastly, recommendations were derived by conducting thematic analysis on the included frameworks.
Results
Thirty frameworks were identified and data related to their nature and scope extracted. The frameworks’ prominent steps and constructs were also retrieved. Recommendations related to implementation and evaluation in the context of co-creation were included.
Conclusion
When engaging in co-creation, we recommend including implementation considerations from an early stage and suggest adopting a systems thinking as a way to explore multiple levels of influence, contextual settings and systems from an early planning stage. We highlight the importance of partnering with stakeholders and suggest applying an evaluation design that is iterative and cyclical, which pays particular attention to the experience of the engaged co-creators.},
keywords = {Evaluation},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Background
By including the needs and perspectives of relevant stakeholders, co-creation is seen as a promising approach for tackling complex public health problems. However, recommendations and guidance on how to plan and implement co-creation are lacking. By identifying and analysing existing implementation and evaluation frameworks for public health, this study aims to offer key recommendations for professional stakeholders and researchers wanting to adopt a co-creation approach to public health interventions.
Methods
Firstly, PubMed and CINAHL databases were screened for articles introducing original implementation and evaluation frameworks for public health interventions. Backwards snowballing techniques were applied to the included papers. Secondly, identified frameworks were classified and relevant data extracted, including steps and constructs present in the frameworks. Lastly, recommendations were derived by conducting thematic analysis on the included frameworks.
Results
Thirty frameworks were identified and data related to their nature and scope extracted. The frameworks’ prominent steps and constructs were also retrieved. Recommendations related to implementation and evaluation in the context of co-creation were included.
Conclusion
When engaging in co-creation, we recommend including implementation considerations from an early stage and suggest adopting a systems thinking as a way to explore multiple levels of influence, contextual settings and systems from an early planning stage. We highlight the importance of partnering with stakeholders and suggest applying an evaluation design that is iterative and cyclical, which pays particular attention to the experience of the engaged co-creators.
By including the needs and perspectives of relevant stakeholders, co-creation is seen as a promising approach for tackling complex public health problems. However, recommendations and guidance on how to plan and implement co-creation are lacking. By identifying and analysing existing implementation and evaluation frameworks for public health, this study aims to offer key recommendations for professional stakeholders and researchers wanting to adopt a co-creation approach to public health interventions.
Methods
Firstly, PubMed and CINAHL databases were screened for articles introducing original implementation and evaluation frameworks for public health interventions. Backwards snowballing techniques were applied to the included papers. Secondly, identified frameworks were classified and relevant data extracted, including steps and constructs present in the frameworks. Lastly, recommendations were derived by conducting thematic analysis on the included frameworks.
Results
Thirty frameworks were identified and data related to their nature and scope extracted. The frameworks’ prominent steps and constructs were also retrieved. Recommendations related to implementation and evaluation in the context of co-creation were included.
Conclusion
When engaging in co-creation, we recommend including implementation considerations from an early stage and suggest adopting a systems thinking as a way to explore multiple levels of influence, contextual settings and systems from an early planning stage. We highlight the importance of partnering with stakeholders and suggest applying an evaluation design that is iterative and cyclical, which pays particular attention to the experience of the engaged co-creators.
McCaffrey, Lauren; McCann, Bryan; Giné-Garriga, Maria; An, Qingfan; Cardon, Greet; Chastin, Sebastien; Chrifou, Rabab; Lippke, Sonia; Loisel, Quentin; Longworth, Giuliana R; Messiha, Katrina; Vogelsang, Mira; Whyte, Emily; Dall, Philippa M
Adult co-creators’ emotional and psychological experiences of the co-creation process: a Health CASCADE scoping review protocol Journal Article
In: Syst Rev, vol. 13, no. 1, 2024, ISSN: 2046-4053.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Implementation
@article{McCaffrey2024,
title = {Adult co-creators’ emotional and psychological experiences of the co-creation process: a Health CASCADE scoping review protocol},
author = {Lauren McCaffrey and Bryan McCann and Maria Giné-Garriga and Qingfan An and Greet Cardon and Sebastien Chastin and Rabab Chrifou and Sonia Lippke and Quentin Loisel and Giuliana R Longworth and Katrina Messiha and Mira Vogelsang and Emily Whyte and Philippa M Dall},
doi = {10.1186/s13643-024-02643-9},
issn = {2046-4053},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-12-00},
urldate = {2024-12-00},
journal = {Syst Rev},
volume = {13},
number = {1},
publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC},
abstract = {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.},
keywords = {Implementation},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
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.
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.
Agnello, Danielle M; Balaskas, George; Steiner, Artur; Chastin, Sebastien
Methods Used in Co-Creation Within the Health CASCADE Co-Creation Database and Gray Literature: Systematic Methods Overview Journal Article
In: Interact J Med Res, vol. 13, 2024, ISSN: 1929-073X.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags:
@article{Agnello2024b,
title = {Methods Used in Co-Creation Within the Health CASCADE Co-Creation Database and Gray Literature: Systematic Methods Overview},
author = {Danielle M Agnello and George Balaskas and Artur Steiner and Sebastien Chastin},
doi = {10.2196/59772},
issn = {1929-073X},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-11-11},
urldate = {2024-11-11},
journal = {Interact J Med Res},
volume = {13},
publisher = {JMIR Publications Inc.},
abstract = {<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Background</jats:title>
<jats:p>Co-creation is increasingly recognized for its potential to generate innovative solutions, particularly in addressing complex and wicked problems in public health. Despite this growing recognition, there are no standards or recommendations for method use in co-creation, leading to confusion and inconsistency. While some studies have examined specific methods, a comprehensive overview is lacking, limiting the collective understanding and ability to make informed decisions about the most appropriate methods for different contexts and research objectives.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Objective</jats:title>
<jats:p>This study aimed to systematically compile and analyze methods used in co-creation to enhance transparency and deepen understanding of how co-creation is practiced.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Methods</jats:title>
<jats:p>To enhance transparency and deepen understanding of how co-creation is practiced, this study systematically inventoried and analyzed methods used in co-creation. We conducted a systematic methods overview, applying 2 parallel processes: one within the peer-reviewed Health CASCADE Co-Creation Database and another within gray literature. An artificial intelligence–assisted recursive search strategy, coupled with a 2-step screening process, ensured that we captured relevant methods. We then extracted method names and conducted textual, comparative, and bibliometric analyses to assess the content, relationship between methods, fields of research, and the methodological underpinnings of the included sources.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Results</jats:title>
<jats:p>We examined a total of 2627 academic papers and gray literature sources, with the literature primarily drawn from health sciences, medical research, and health services research. The dominant methodologies identified were co-creation, co-design, coproduction, participatory research methodologies, and public and patient involvement. From these sources, we extracted and analyzed 956 co-creation methods, noting that only 10% (n=97) of the methods overlap between academic and gray literature. Notably, 91.3% (230/252) of the methods in academic literature co-occurred, often involving combinations of multiple qualitative methods. The most frequently used methods in academic literature included surveys, focus groups, photo voice, and group discussion, whereas gray literature highlighted methods such as world café, focus groups, role-playing, and persona.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title>
<jats:p>This study presents the first systematic overview of co-creation methods, providing a clear understanding of the diverse methods currently in use. Our findings reveal a significant methodological gap between researchers and practitioners, offering insights into the relative prevalence and combinations of methods. By shedding light on these methods, this study helps bridge the gap and supports researchers in making informed decisions about which methods to apply in their work. Additionally, it offers a foundation for further investigation into method use in co-creation. This systematic investigation is a valuable resource for anyone engaging in co-creation or similar participatory methodologies, helping to navigate the diverse landscape of methods.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Background</jats:title>
<jats:p>Co-creation is increasingly recognized for its potential to generate innovative solutions, particularly in addressing complex and wicked problems in public health. Despite this growing recognition, there are no standards or recommendations for method use in co-creation, leading to confusion and inconsistency. While some studies have examined specific methods, a comprehensive overview is lacking, limiting the collective understanding and ability to make informed decisions about the most appropriate methods for different contexts and research objectives.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Objective</jats:title>
<jats:p>This study aimed to systematically compile and analyze methods used in co-creation to enhance transparency and deepen understanding of how co-creation is practiced.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Methods</jats:title>
<jats:p>To enhance transparency and deepen understanding of how co-creation is practiced, this study systematically inventoried and analyzed methods used in co-creation. We conducted a systematic methods overview, applying 2 parallel processes: one within the peer-reviewed Health CASCADE Co-Creation Database and another within gray literature. An artificial intelligence–assisted recursive search strategy, coupled with a 2-step screening process, ensured that we captured relevant methods. We then extracted method names and conducted textual, comparative, and bibliometric analyses to assess the content, relationship between methods, fields of research, and the methodological underpinnings of the included sources.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Results</jats:title>
<jats:p>We examined a total of 2627 academic papers and gray literature sources, with the literature primarily drawn from health sciences, medical research, and health services research. The dominant methodologies identified were co-creation, co-design, coproduction, participatory research methodologies, and public and patient involvement. From these sources, we extracted and analyzed 956 co-creation methods, noting that only 10% (n=97) of the methods overlap between academic and gray literature. Notably, 91.3% (230/252) of the methods in academic literature co-occurred, often involving combinations of multiple qualitative methods. The most frequently used methods in academic literature included surveys, focus groups, photo voice, and group discussion, whereas gray literature highlighted methods such as world café, focus groups, role-playing, and persona.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title>
<jats:p>This study presents the first systematic overview of co-creation methods, providing a clear understanding of the diverse methods currently in use. Our findings reveal a significant methodological gap between researchers and practitioners, offering insights into the relative prevalence and combinations of methods. By shedding light on these methods, this study helps bridge the gap and supports researchers in making informed decisions about which methods to apply in their work. Additionally, it offers a foundation for further investigation into method use in co-creation. This systematic investigation is a valuable resource for anyone engaging in co-creation or similar participatory methodologies, helping to navigate the diverse landscape of methods.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:title>Background</jats:title>
<jats:p>Co-creation is increasingly recognized for its potential to generate innovative solutions, particularly in addressing complex and wicked problems in public health. Despite this growing recognition, there are no standards or recommendations for method use in co-creation, leading to confusion and inconsistency. While some studies have examined specific methods, a comprehensive overview is lacking, limiting the collective understanding and ability to make informed decisions about the most appropriate methods for different contexts and research objectives.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Objective</jats:title>
<jats:p>This study aimed to systematically compile and analyze methods used in co-creation to enhance transparency and deepen understanding of how co-creation is practiced.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Methods</jats:title>
<jats:p>To enhance transparency and deepen understanding of how co-creation is practiced, this study systematically inventoried and analyzed methods used in co-creation. We conducted a systematic methods overview, applying 2 parallel processes: one within the peer-reviewed Health CASCADE Co-Creation Database and another within gray literature. An artificial intelligence–assisted recursive search strategy, coupled with a 2-step screening process, ensured that we captured relevant methods. We then extracted method names and conducted textual, comparative, and bibliometric analyses to assess the content, relationship between methods, fields of research, and the methodological underpinnings of the included sources.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Results</jats:title>
<jats:p>We examined a total of 2627 academic papers and gray literature sources, with the literature primarily drawn from health sciences, medical research, and health services research. The dominant methodologies identified were co-creation, co-design, coproduction, participatory research methodologies, and public and patient involvement. From these sources, we extracted and analyzed 956 co-creation methods, noting that only 10% (n=97) of the methods overlap between academic and gray literature. Notably, 91.3% (230/252) of the methods in academic literature co-occurred, often involving combinations of multiple qualitative methods. The most frequently used methods in academic literature included surveys, focus groups, photo voice, and group discussion, whereas gray literature highlighted methods such as world café, focus groups, role-playing, and persona.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title>
<jats:p>This study presents the first systematic overview of co-creation methods, providing a clear understanding of the diverse methods currently in use. Our findings reveal a significant methodological gap between researchers and practitioners, offering insights into the relative prevalence and combinations of methods. By shedding light on these methods, this study helps bridge the gap and supports researchers in making informed decisions about which methods to apply in their work. Additionally, it offers a foundation for further investigation into method use in co-creation. This systematic investigation is a valuable resource for anyone engaging in co-creation or similar participatory methodologies, helping to navigate the diverse landscape of methods.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
Zapata-Restrepo, Jorge R; Longworth, Giuliana R; Chinapaw, Mai JM; Dall, Philippa M; Skelton, Dawn A; Torné, Sacra M; Giné-Garriga, Maria
In: Cities & Health, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 759–770, 2024, ISSN: 2374-8842.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Implementation
@article{Zapata-Restrepo2023,
title = {Inter-rater reliability of the ‘Tool for assessing determinants of health in public space’ in a co-creative urban design process with care home residents in Barcelona: a Health CASCADE study},
author = {Jorge R Zapata-Restrepo and Giuliana R Longworth and Mai JM Chinapaw and Philippa M Dall and Dawn A Skelton and Sacra M Torné and Maria Giné-Garriga},
doi = {10.1080/23748834.2023.2286724},
issn = {2374-8842},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-07-03},
urldate = {2024-07-03},
journal = {Cities & Health},
volume = {8},
number = {4},
pages = {759--770},
publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
abstract = {This study aims to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of the Tool for assessing determinants of health in public space, a methodology developed to assess the potential health impact of public space improvement actions. The study involved a participatory evaluation conducted during an urban design co-creation process with older adults and researchers from various disciplines. Ten older adults from a care home in Barcelona and five researchers participated in the evaluation of five selected public spaces using the tool. An analysis using Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was conducted to assess inter-rater reliability. A descriptive comparison of the results was performed based on the scores given to each determinant. The findings provide insights into the tool’s reliability and its potential for capturing diverse perspectives. The Tool does not appear to have high reliability when implemented in a community setting. The ICC values for most of the determinants are relatively low, indicating poor or moderate levels of agreement among the raters/judges. The study highlights the importance of involving end-users and researchers in the evaluation process, emphasizing the need for user-centered design and co-creation in urban planning. The results contribute to improving public health outcomes and promoting age-friendly environments in urban spaces.},
keywords = {Implementation},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This study aims to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of the Tool for assessing determinants of health in public space, a methodology developed to assess the potential health impact of public space improvement actions. The study involved a participatory evaluation conducted during an urban design co-creation process with older adults and researchers from various disciplines. Ten older adults from a care home in Barcelona and five researchers participated in the evaluation of five selected public spaces using the tool. An analysis using Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was conducted to assess inter-rater reliability. A descriptive comparison of the results was performed based on the scores given to each determinant. The findings provide insights into the tool’s reliability and its potential for capturing diverse perspectives. The Tool does not appear to have high reliability when implemented in a community setting. The ICC values for most of the determinants are relatively low, indicating poor or moderate levels of agreement among the raters/judges. The study highlights the importance of involving end-users and researchers in the evaluation process, emphasizing the need for user-centered design and co-creation in urban planning. The results contribute to improving public health outcomes and promoting age-friendly environments in urban spaces.
Longworth, Giuliana R; de Boer, Janneke; Goh, Kunshan; Agnello, Danielle M; McCaffrey, Lauren; Restrepo, Jorge R Zapata; An, Qingfan; Chastin, Sebastien; Davis, Aaron; Altenburg, Teatske M; Verloigne, Maite; Giné-Garriga, Maria
Navigating process evaluation in co-creation: a Health CASCADE scoping review of used frameworks and assessed components Journal Article
In: BMJ Glob Health, vol. 9, no. 7, 2024, ISSN: 2059-7908.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Evaluation
@article{Longworth2024c,
title = {Navigating process evaluation in co-creation: a Health CASCADE scoping review of used frameworks and assessed components},
author = {Giuliana R Longworth and Janneke de Boer and Kunshan Goh and Danielle M Agnello and Lauren McCaffrey and Jorge R Zapata Restrepo and Qingfan An and Sebastien Chastin and Aaron Davis and Teatske M Altenburg and Maite Verloigne and Maria Giné-Garriga},
doi = {10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014483},
issn = {2059-7908},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-07-00},
urldate = {2024-07-00},
journal = {BMJ Glob Health},
volume = {9},
number = {7},
publisher = {BMJ},
abstract = {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.},
keywords = {Evaluation},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
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.
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.
Agnello, Danielle M; Balaskas, George; Steiner, Artur; Chastin, Sebastien
Systematic Inventory of Methods Used in Co-Creation: A Health CASCADE Systematic Methods Overview (Preprint) Journal Article
In: 2024, ISSN: 1929-073X.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Methodology
@article{Agnello2024,
title = {Systematic Inventory of Methods Used in Co-Creation: A Health CASCADE Systematic Methods Overview (Preprint)},
author = {Danielle M Agnello and George Balaskas and Artur Steiner and Sebastien Chastin},
doi = {10.2196/59772},
issn = {1929-073X},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-04-23},
urldate = {2024-04-23},
publisher = {JMIR Publications Inc.},
abstract = {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.},
keywords = {Methodology},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
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.
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.
Delfmann, Lea R; Verloigne, Maïté; Deforche, Benedicte; Hunter, Simon C; Cardon, Greet; de Boer, Janneke; Vandendriessche, Ann
Psychosocial Determinants of Sleep Behavior and Healthy Sleep Among Adolescents: A Two-Wave Panel Study Journal Article
In: J. Youth Adolescence, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 360–373, 2024, ISSN: 1573-6601.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Implementation
@article{Delfmann2023,
title = {Psychosocial Determinants of Sleep Behavior and Healthy Sleep Among Adolescents: A Two-Wave Panel Study},
author = {Lea R Delfmann and Maïté Verloigne and Benedicte Deforche and Simon C Hunter and Greet Cardon and Janneke de Boer and Ann Vandendriessche},
doi = {10.1007/s10964-023-01866-8},
issn = {1573-6601},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-02-00},
urldate = {2024-02-00},
journal = {J. Youth Adolescence},
volume = {53},
number = {2},
pages = {360--373},
publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC},
abstract = {To date, it remains unknown which psychosocial determinants identified by several leading behavior change theories are associated with different sleep parameters among adolescents. Therefore, this study investigates whether changes in knowledge about healthy sleep, attitude toward healthy sleep and going to bed on time, self-efficacy to engage in healthy sleep behavior, perceived parental and peer norms, perceived barriers (e.g., worrying, fear of missing out), and perceived support (e.g., bedtime rules, encouragement) related to healthy sleep are associated with changes in adolescents' sleep duration on school days and free days and sleep quality over a period of 1 year. Two-wave data of 1648 Flemish adolescents (mean age = 15.01, SD = 0.65, 46.3% female) were analyzed using linear models. Increased levels of parental social support, positive attitude towards and perceived advantages of healthy sleep, norm-knowledge, and perceived peer behavior were associated with sleep duration, with parental social support having the strongest association. Increased levels of perceived barriers were associated with decreased levels of sleep quality parameters, and increased levels of self-efficacy, positive attitude, and parental modeling were associated with improved sleep quality parameters, with perceived barriers having the strongest association. The current results indicate that behavior change theories are useful in the context of adolescent sleep behavior and suggest that perceived parental support (i.e., bedtime rules) and perceived barriers are most strongly associated with adolescents' sleep duration and/or quality.},
keywords = {Implementation},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
To date, it remains unknown which psychosocial determinants identified by several leading behavior change theories are associated with different sleep parameters among adolescents. Therefore, this study investigates whether changes in knowledge about healthy sleep, attitude toward healthy sleep and going to bed on time, self-efficacy to engage in healthy sleep behavior, perceived parental and peer norms, perceived barriers (e.g., worrying, fear of missing out), and perceived support (e.g., bedtime rules, encouragement) related to healthy sleep are associated with changes in adolescents' sleep duration on school days and free days and sleep quality over a period of 1 year. Two-wave data of 1648 Flemish adolescents (mean age = 15.01, SD = 0.65, 46.3% female) were analyzed using linear models. Increased levels of parental social support, positive attitude towards and perceived advantages of healthy sleep, norm-knowledge, and perceived peer behavior were associated with sleep duration, with parental social support having the strongest association. Increased levels of perceived barriers were associated with decreased levels of sleep quality parameters, and increased levels of self-efficacy, positive attitude, and parental modeling were associated with improved sleep quality parameters, with perceived barriers having the strongest association. The current results indicate that behavior change theories are useful in the context of adolescent sleep behavior and suggest that perceived parental support (i.e., bedtime rules) and perceived barriers are most strongly associated with adolescents' sleep duration and/or quality.
2023
Messiha, Katrina; Chinapaw, Mai JM; Ket, Hans CFF; An, Qingfan; Anand-Kumar, Vinayak; Longworth, Giuliana R; Chastin, Sebastien; Altenburg, Teatske M
Systematic Review of Contemporary Theories Used for Co-creation, Co-design and Co-production in Public Health Journal Article
In: vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 723–737, 2023, ISSN: 1741-3850.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Theory
@article{Messiha2023,
title = {Systematic Review of Contemporary Theories Used for Co-creation, Co-design and Co-production in Public Health},
author = {Katrina Messiha and Mai JM Chinapaw and Hans CFF Ket and Qingfan An and Vinayak Anand-Kumar and Giuliana R Longworth and Sebastien Chastin and Teatske M Altenburg},
doi = {10.1093/pubmed/fdad046},
issn = {1741-3850},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-08-28},
urldate = {2023-08-28},
volume = {45},
number = {3},
pages = {723--737},
publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)},
abstract = {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.},
keywords = {Theory},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
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.
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.
Agnello, Danielle M; Loisel, Quentin; An, Qingfan; Balaskas, George; Chrifou, Rabab; Dall, Philippa M; de Boer, Janneke; Delfmann, Lea R; Giné-Garriga, Maria; Goh, Kunshan; Longworth, Giuliana R; Messiha, Katrina; McCaffrey, Lauren; Smith, Niamh; Steiner, Artur; Vogelsang, Mira; Chastin, Sebastien
In: J Med Internet Res, vol. 25, 2023, ISSN: 1438-8871.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Methodology, Technology
@article{Agnello2023,
title = {Establishing a Health CASCADE–Curated Open-Access Database to Consolidate Knowledge About Co-Creation: Novel Artificial Intelligence–Assisted Methodology Based on Systematic Reviews},
author = {Danielle M Agnello and Quentin Loisel and Qingfan An and George Balaskas and Rabab Chrifou and Philippa M Dall and Janneke de Boer and Lea R Delfmann and Maria Giné-Garriga and Kunshan Goh and Giuliana R Longworth and Katrina Messiha and Lauren McCaffrey and Niamh Smith and Artur Steiner and Mira Vogelsang and Sebastien Chastin},
doi = {10.2196/45059},
issn = {1438-8871},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-07-18},
urldate = {2023-07-18},
journal = {J Med Internet Res},
volume = {25},
publisher = {JMIR Publications Inc.},
abstract = {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.},
keywords = {Methodology, Technology},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
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.
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.
Balaskas, George; Papadopoulos, Homer; Loisel, Quentin; Pappa, Dimitra; Efthymoglou, George; Chastin, Sebastien
An end-to-end system for transcription, translation, and summarization to support the co-creation process. A Health CASCADE Study. Proceedings Article
In: pp. 625–631, ACM, 2023.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Technology
@inproceedings{Balaskas2023,
title = {An end-to-end system for transcription, translation, and summarization to support the co-creation process. A Health CASCADE Study.},
author = {George Balaskas and Homer Papadopoulos and Quentin Loisel and Dimitra Pappa and George Efthymoglou and Sebastien Chastin},
doi = {10.1145/3594806.3596567},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-07-05},
urldate = {2023-07-05},
pages = {625--631},
publisher = {ACM},
abstract = {This paper presents a web service and a deep learning (DL) pipeline that has been developed and implemented as part of the MSCA Health CASCADE project. The purpose of the web service is to provide support, streamline, and enable participatory methods, such as co-creation, in the public health domain. The DL pipeline assists with translation, transcription, speaker diarization, relation extraction, and summarization of audio recordings. This is achieved by removing the need for time-consuming tasks, such as translating and transcribing audio recordings. Additional value is created by extracting implicit relations from the transcribed text and identifying patterns, key themes, and trends. Finally, providing summaries of the transcripts creates a sense of ownership that can improve stakeholder retention in participatory methods.},
keywords = {Technology},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
This paper presents a web service and a deep learning (DL) pipeline that has been developed and implemented as part of the MSCA Health CASCADE project. The purpose of the web service is to provide support, streamline, and enable participatory methods, such as co-creation, in the public health domain. The DL pipeline assists with translation, transcription, speaker diarization, relation extraction, and summarization of audio recordings. This is achieved by removing the need for time-consuming tasks, such as translating and transcribing audio recordings. Additional value is created by extracting implicit relations from the transcribed text and identifying patterns, key themes, and trends. Finally, providing summaries of the transcripts creates a sense of ownership that can improve stakeholder retention in participatory methods.
Verloigne, Maïté; Altenburg, Teatske M; Cardon, Greet; Chinapaw, Mai JM; Dall, Philippa M; Deforche, Benedicte; Giné-Garriga, Maria; Lippke, Sonia; Papadopoulos, Homer; Pappa, Dimitra; Sandlund, Marlene; Schreier, Margrit; Wadell, Karin; Chastin, Sebastien
In: Perspect Public Health, vol. 143, no. 4, pp. 196–198, 2023, ISSN: 1757-9147.
Links | BibTeX | Tags: Implementation, Methodology
@article{Verloigne2023,
title = {Making co-creation a trustworthy methodology for closing the implementation gap between knowledge and action in health promotion: the Health CASCADE project},
author = {Maïté Verloigne and Teatske M Altenburg and Greet Cardon and Mai JM Chinapaw and Philippa M Dall and Benedicte Deforche and Maria Giné-Garriga and Sonia Lippke and Homer Papadopoulos and Dimitra Pappa and Marlene Sandlund and Margrit Schreier and Karin Wadell and Sebastien Chastin},
doi = {10.1177/17579139221136718},
issn = {1757-9147},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-07-00},
urldate = {2023-07-00},
journal = {Perspect Public Health},
volume = {143},
number = {4},
pages = {196--198},
publisher = {SAGE Publications},
keywords = {Implementation, Methodology},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
An, Qingfan; Sandlund, Marlene; Agnello, Danielle M; McCaffrey, Lauren; Chastin, Sebastien; Helleday, Ragnberth; Wadell, Karin
In: Respiratory Medicine, vol. 211, 2023, ISSN: 0954-6111.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Implementation
@article{An2023,
title = {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},
author = {Qingfan An and Marlene Sandlund and Danielle M Agnello and Lauren McCaffrey and Sebastien Chastin and Ragnberth Helleday and Karin Wadell},
doi = {10.1016/j.rmed.2023.107193},
issn = {0954-6111},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-05-00},
urldate = {2023-05-00},
journal = {Respiratory Medicine},
volume = {211},
publisher = {Elsevier BV},
abstract = {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.},
keywords = {Implementation},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
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.
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.
Rinn, Robin; Gao, Lingling; Schoeneich, Sarah; Dahmen, Alina; Anand-Kumar, Vinayak; Becker, Petra; Lippke, Sonia
Digital Interventions for Treating Post-COVID or Long-COVID Symptoms: Scoping Review Journal Article
In: J Med Internet Res, vol. 25, 2023, ISSN: 1438-8871.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Implementation
@article{Rinn2023,
title = {Digital Interventions for Treating Post-COVID or Long-COVID Symptoms: Scoping Review},
author = {Robin Rinn and Lingling Gao and Sarah Schoeneich and Alina Dahmen and Vinayak Anand-Kumar and Petra Becker and Sonia Lippke},
doi = {10.2196/45711},
issn = {1438-8871},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-04-17},
urldate = {2023-04-17},
journal = {J Med Internet Res},
volume = {25},
publisher = {JMIR Publications Inc.},
abstract = {Background
Patients with post-COVID/long-COVID symptoms need support, and health care professionals need to be able to provide evidence-based patient care. Digital interventions can meet these requirements, especially if personal contact is limited.
Objective
We reviewed evidence-based digital interventions that are currently available to help manage physical and mental health in patients with post-COVID/long-COVID symptoms.
Methods
A scoping review was carried out summarizing novel digital health interventions for treating post-COVID/long-COVID patients. Using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) scheme, original studies were summarized, in which patients with post-COVID/long-COVID symptoms used digital interventions to help aid recovery.
Results
From all scanned articles, 8 original studies matched the inclusion criteria. Of the 8 studies, 3 were "pretest" studies, 3 described the implementation of a telerehabilitation program, 1 was a post-COVID/long-COVID program, and 1 described the results of qualitative interviews with patients who used an online peer-support group. Following the PICO scheme, we summarized previous studies. Studies varied in terms of participants (P), ranging from adults in different countries, such as former hospitalized patients with COVID-19, to individuals in disadvantaged communities in the United Kingdom, as well as health care workers. In addition, the studies included patients who had previously been infected with COVID-19 and who had ongoing symptoms. Some studies focused on individuals with specific symptoms, including those with either post-COVID-19 or long-term symptoms, while other studies included patients based on participation in online peer-support groups. The interventions (I) also varied. Most interventions used a combination of psychological and physical exercises, but they varied in duration, frequency, and social dimensions. The reviewed studies investigated the physical and mental health conditions of patients with post-COVID/long-COVID symptoms. Most studies had no control (C) group, and most studies reported outcomes (O) or improvements in physiological health perception, some physical conditions, fatigue, and some psychological aspects such as depression. However, some studies found no improvements in bowel or bladder problems, concentration, short-term memory, unpleasant dreams, physical ailments, perceived bodily pain, emotional ailments, and perceived mental health.
Conclusions
More systematic research with larger sample sizes is required to overcome sampling bias and include health care professionals' perspectives, as well as help patients mobilize support from health care professionals and social network partners. The evidence so far suggests that patients should be provided with digital interventions to manage symptoms and reintegrate into everyday life, including work.},
keywords = {Implementation},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Background
Patients with post-COVID/long-COVID symptoms need support, and health care professionals need to be able to provide evidence-based patient care. Digital interventions can meet these requirements, especially if personal contact is limited.
Objective
We reviewed evidence-based digital interventions that are currently available to help manage physical and mental health in patients with post-COVID/long-COVID symptoms.
Methods
A scoping review was carried out summarizing novel digital health interventions for treating post-COVID/long-COVID patients. Using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) scheme, original studies were summarized, in which patients with post-COVID/long-COVID symptoms used digital interventions to help aid recovery.
Results
From all scanned articles, 8 original studies matched the inclusion criteria. Of the 8 studies, 3 were "pretest" studies, 3 described the implementation of a telerehabilitation program, 1 was a post-COVID/long-COVID program, and 1 described the results of qualitative interviews with patients who used an online peer-support group. Following the PICO scheme, we summarized previous studies. Studies varied in terms of participants (P), ranging from adults in different countries, such as former hospitalized patients with COVID-19, to individuals in disadvantaged communities in the United Kingdom, as well as health care workers. In addition, the studies included patients who had previously been infected with COVID-19 and who had ongoing symptoms. Some studies focused on individuals with specific symptoms, including those with either post-COVID-19 or long-term symptoms, while other studies included patients based on participation in online peer-support groups. The interventions (I) also varied. Most interventions used a combination of psychological and physical exercises, but they varied in duration, frequency, and social dimensions. The reviewed studies investigated the physical and mental health conditions of patients with post-COVID/long-COVID symptoms. Most studies had no control (C) group, and most studies reported outcomes (O) or improvements in physiological health perception, some physical conditions, fatigue, and some psychological aspects such as depression. However, some studies found no improvements in bowel or bladder problems, concentration, short-term memory, unpleasant dreams, physical ailments, perceived bodily pain, emotional ailments, and perceived mental health.
Conclusions
More systematic research with larger sample sizes is required to overcome sampling bias and include health care professionals' perspectives, as well as help patients mobilize support from health care professionals and social network partners. The evidence so far suggests that patients should be provided with digital interventions to manage symptoms and reintegrate into everyday life, including work.
Patients with post-COVID/long-COVID symptoms need support, and health care professionals need to be able to provide evidence-based patient care. Digital interventions can meet these requirements, especially if personal contact is limited.
Objective
We reviewed evidence-based digital interventions that are currently available to help manage physical and mental health in patients with post-COVID/long-COVID symptoms.
Methods
A scoping review was carried out summarizing novel digital health interventions for treating post-COVID/long-COVID patients. Using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) scheme, original studies were summarized, in which patients with post-COVID/long-COVID symptoms used digital interventions to help aid recovery.
Results
From all scanned articles, 8 original studies matched the inclusion criteria. Of the 8 studies, 3 were "pretest" studies, 3 described the implementation of a telerehabilitation program, 1 was a post-COVID/long-COVID program, and 1 described the results of qualitative interviews with patients who used an online peer-support group. Following the PICO scheme, we summarized previous studies. Studies varied in terms of participants (P), ranging from adults in different countries, such as former hospitalized patients with COVID-19, to individuals in disadvantaged communities in the United Kingdom, as well as health care workers. In addition, the studies included patients who had previously been infected with COVID-19 and who had ongoing symptoms. Some studies focused on individuals with specific symptoms, including those with either post-COVID-19 or long-term symptoms, while other studies included patients based on participation in online peer-support groups. The interventions (I) also varied. Most interventions used a combination of psychological and physical exercises, but they varied in duration, frequency, and social dimensions. The reviewed studies investigated the physical and mental health conditions of patients with post-COVID/long-COVID symptoms. Most studies had no control (C) group, and most studies reported outcomes (O) or improvements in physiological health perception, some physical conditions, fatigue, and some psychological aspects such as depression. However, some studies found no improvements in bowel or bladder problems, concentration, short-term memory, unpleasant dreams, physical ailments, perceived bodily pain, emotional ailments, and perceived mental health.
Conclusions
More systematic research with larger sample sizes is required to overcome sampling bias and include health care professionals' perspectives, as well as help patients mobilize support from health care professionals and social network partners. The evidence so far suggests that patients should be provided with digital interventions to manage symptoms and reintegrate into everyday life, including work.
2022
Zapata-Restrepo, Jorge R; Torné, Sacra M; Giné-Garriga, Maria
In: Brains: Business, Research, Ageing, Innovation, Neuroscience & Social Journal, vol. Ageing, pp. 19-24, 2022.
Links | BibTeX | Tags: Implementation
@article{nokey,
title = {Cocreación y realidad virtual/aumentada como herramientas para fomentar la participación y visibilidad de los adultos mayores en procesos de planificación urbana. },
author = {Jorge R Zapata-Restrepo and Sacra M Torné and Maria Giné-Garriga},
url = {https://t.co/PCHhMssGuT},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-09-01},
urldate = {2022-09-01},
journal = {Brains: Business, Research, Ageing, Innovation, Neuroscience & Social Journal},
volume = {Ageing},
pages = {19-24},
series = {Brains: Business, Research, Ageing, Innovation, Neuroscience & Social Journal},
keywords = {Implementation},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Coming Soon...
- YoCo conceptual framework: Integrating interdisciplinary approaches for the design and evaluation of a youth-centered co-creation project towards healthy urban public space.
- Adolescents’ experiences of a shortened co-creation process to adapt a healthy sleep intervention – A Health CASCADE study
- Co-creating a multicomponent complex intervention to improve the experience of hospitalization for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using intervention mapping
- Explore the experience and expectations of hospital care during acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Perspective of patients
- Teachers’ experiences with a co-creation process to develop an implementation plan for a school-based intervention targeting healthy sleep in adolescents: a Health CASCADE study
- Process evaluation of a school-based intervention to promote healthy sleep among adolescents: comparison between a school with a co-created implementation plan and a school with a standard implementation plan (a Health CASCADE study).
- Dissolving implementation barriers: a co-creation process with teachers to refine an implementation plan of an intervention targeting physical activity and sedentary behaviour in adolescents (a Health CASCADE study).
- Actualizing child and adolescent empowerment in participatory action research for health promotion: a six-element framework
- Designing a communication tool for primary care: Understanding patient needs and experiences using collaborative research methods
- Predictive Modelling of a Digital Health Intervention’s Impact on Obstetrics Care Costs: Insights from a Randomized Controlled Trial
- Adult co-creators’ emotional and psychological experiences of the co-creation process: a Health CASCADE scoping review protocol
- The dark side of co-creation for health promotion interventions: insights from Health CASCADE researchers
- Implementing a youth centred approach to placemaking to co-create a socially and physically activating public space for teens – A Health Cascade Study
- Enabling Evidence-based Public Health Co-creation through Large Language Model and Deep learning systems: A Health CASCADE study.
- Optimizing Large Language Models (LLM) for Domain-Specific Tasks through Dataset Creation, Model Fine-tuning and Preference Optimization: A Health CASCADE Study
- Leveraging Large Language Models for Patient Profile Generation, Literature Retrieval and Medical Information Summarization: A Health CASCADE Study
- Passage Retrieval and Question Answering systems to support evidence-based co-creation methodology: A Health CASCADE Study
- Engage4Change: Co-creating indoor common spaces in care homes and outdoor community spaces to improve movement behaviour and reduce social isolation: study protocol within the Health CASCADE study.
- Enriching the Existing Knowledge about Co-creation: Identifying Dimensions of Co-creation using Explicit Theory in Various Research Fields
- Adults’ emotional and psychological experiences during co-creation: A Health CASCADE scoping review.
- Towards System-Level Co-creation in eHealth Tool Development: Case Study of developing an eHealth tool for people with COPD.
- Revising the PRODUCES Framework to meet the current needs in co-creation for Public Health Intervention Design and Implementation
- The experiences of school staff with their involvement in the co-creation of school-based actions: A thematic synthesis of qualitative studies to inform Health CASCADE
- Co-creating digital tools in health care: Results from three case studies
- Elicited Insights from International Academics and a Dutch NGO on Youth Participatory Action Research – A Health CASCADE Study
- Adapting co-created interventions: usability of the ADAPT framework and recommendations. A Health CASCADE study
- Empirical ethical decision-making among those involved in co-creation practice: a Health CASCADE critical scoping review
- Building a Health CASCADE Methods Selector for Co-creation by Establishing a Taxonomy and Performing a Narrative Review of Co-creation Methods
Comparison of Co-creation Methods in Research and in Practice: A Health CASCADE Study - Establishing a Set of Evaluation Criteria for Assessing the Effectiveness of Co-creation Methods: A Health CASCADE Study
- Ecosystem of Digital Technologies for Co-creation (EDTC): A Health CASCADE taxonomy
- Co-creating statistical analysis pipelines in psychology: Applications in processing and analysing data for digital health tools
- Impact of co-creation methods on user engagement in digital health tools
- An end-to-end transcription and summarisation system to support the co-creation process
- Scoping review of needs for digital technologies in co-creation
- Leveraging Large Language Models for Patient Profile Generation, Literature Retrieval and Medical Information Summarization: A Health CASCADE Study
- A Health CASCADE assessment of digital technological needs for co-creation
- A Cross-Case Comparative Study of Co-Creation Experiences in Three Scottish SMEs.
- Adolescents’ experiences of a shortened co-creation process to adapt a healthy sleep intervention – A Health CASCADE study
- How to set up a co-creation protocol? Roadmap from a Health CASCADE study on sedentary behaviour in Scottish workplaces
The Iteration Of Three Co-Creation Processes From A Health CASCADE Study On Sedentary Behaviour In Scottish Workplaces - Evaluating The Sustainability And Co-created Solutions of Three Co-Creation Processes From A Health CASCADE Study On Sedentary Behaviour In Scottish Workplaces
- Evaluating The Effect Of Co-Created Interventions To Reduce Sedentary Behaviour In Scottish Workplaces: A Health CASCADE Study
- Ecosystem of Digital Technologies for Co-creation (EDTC): A Health CASCADE taxonomy
- Youth perspectives on the ethics of co-creation: a qualitative description
- Grey Literature Scoping Review: A Synthesis on Participatory Methodologies in Aging Underrepresented Groups to Address Dementia
- Co-creation meets Critical Realism: Reflections and Recommendations Following a Participatory Workshop with Underrepresented Individuals for a Dementia Project
- Co-design and co-creation with people with disabilities
Sign up for our newsletter
Hear from Health CASCADE and contribute to the development of a co-creation methodology