Publications

@article{Delfmann2025,

title = {Experiences with a co-creation process to adapt a healthy sleep intervention with adolescents: A Health CASCADE process evaluation},

author = {Lea R Delfmann and Janneke de Boer and Margrit Schreier and Katrina Messiha and Benedicte Deforche and Simon C Hunter and Greet Cardon and Ann Vandendriessche and Maïté Verloigne},

doi = {10.1016/j.puhe.2025.02.006},

issn = {0033-3506},

year  = {2025},

date = {2025-04-00},

urldate = {2025-04-00},

journal = {Public Health},

volume = {241},

pages = {69--74},

publisher = {Elsevier BV},

abstract = {Objectives

Co-adaptation is a collaborative process to adapt existing interventions to new contexts and offers a promising way to scale (co-created) public health interventions. However, there is limited understanding of how co-adaptation processes are experienced. This study examined whether a robust co-creation process can be maintained when adapting a previously co-created intervention to promote adolescents' healthy sleep. Adolescents' experiences during this co-adaptation process were explored, using five key dimensions of co-creation (1) multistakeholder collaborative action, 2) co-learning towards innovation, 3) contextual knowledge production, 4) generating meaning, 5) open, trustful, and inclusive dialogue) as the guiding framework.



Study design

Qualitative observational study.



Methods

Qualitative data were collected from a co-adaptation process with an action group of adolescents (n = 8) and researchers (n = 2). Over eleven sessions (50 min) following Intervention Mapping, a needs assessment was conducted, and the original intervention's goals and materials were adapted. Data sources included session transcripts, facilitator reflections, adolescent evaluations (n = 5), and focus group transcripts (n = 3), elaborating on adolescents' experiences during sessions, and were analysed using Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA).



Results

All five dimensions of co-creation were reflected in adolescents' experiences of co-adapting the healthy sleep intervention. They enjoyed collaborating, committed to the project, reported ongoing possibilities for learning, and produced contextual knowledge from their lived experiences. The process felt meaningful, with a respectful atmosphere. However, challenges like the exclusion of students outside the group and time constraints were also encountered.



Conclusions

The presence of the five dimensions of co-creation in this study demonstrates that robust co-creation research can be maintained also when co-adapting a previously co-created intervention to a new context with a new group of stakeholders.},

keywords = {Evaluation},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@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}

}

@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}

}