Publications

@article{Agnello2025,

title = {Co-creation methods for public health research — characteristics, benefits, and challenges: a Health CASCADE scoping review},

author = {Danielle Marie Agnello and Vinayak Anand-Kumar and Qingfan An and Janneke de Boer and Lea Rahel Delfmann and Giuliana Raffaella Longworth and Quentin Loisel and Lauren McCaffrey and Artur Steiner and Sebastien Chastin},

doi = {10.1186/s12874-025-02514-4},

issn = {1471-2288},

year  = {2025},

date = {2025-12-00},

urldate = {2025-12-00},

journal = {BMC Med Res Methodol},

volume = {25},

number = {1},

publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC},

abstract = {<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title>

          <jats:sec>

            <jats:title>Background</jats:title>

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

          </jats:sec>

          <jats:sec>

            <jats:title>Methods</jats:title>

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

          </jats:sec>

          <jats:sec>

            <jats:title>Results</jats:title>

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

          </jats:sec>

          <jats:sec>

            <jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title>

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

          </jats:sec>},

keywords = {Methodology},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@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}

}

@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 = {Methodology},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@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}

}

@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}

}

@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}

}