Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34339528›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2021

Mitigating unintended consequences of co-design in health care.

Éidín Ní Shé, Reema Harrison

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Better Healthcare Together: Co-Designing a Framework for Health Service Co-Design.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Using an evidence-informed co-design approach to develop a mechanism to measure experiences of the open disclosure process: an Irish case study.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Continuity Is Essential: The Experiences of Co-Design Participants During the Implementation of a New Health Service.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Éidín Ní ShéSchool of Population Health, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1036-6044
Reema HarrisonCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCo-design and associated terms are increasingly being used to facilitate values-based approaches to health-care improvement. It is messy and complex, involving diverse actors.

methodsWe explore the notion that initiatives have outcomes other than initially planned is neither new nor novel but is overlooked when thinking about co-design. We explore some of the unintended consequences and outline some optimal conditions that can mitigate challenges. DISCUSSION: Although co-design approaches are being applied in health care, questions remain regarding its ability to produce gains in health outcomes. Little is known about determining whether co-design is the most suitable approach to achieve the given project goals, the levels of involvement required to realize the benefits of co-design or the potential unintended consequences. There is a risk of further marginalizing or adding burden to under-represented populations and/or over-researched populations.

conclusionUndertaking a co-design approach without the optimal conditions for inclusive involvement by all may not result in an equal partnership or improve health or care quality outcomes. Co-design requires on-going reflective discussions and deliberative thinking to remove any power imbalances. However, without adequate resources, a focus on implementation and support from senior leaders, it is a tough ask to achieve. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This viewpoint article was written by two academics who have undertaken a significant amount of PPI and co-design work with members of the public and patient's right across the health system. Our work guided the focus of this viewpoint as we reflected on our experiences.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth FacilitiesHumansco-designhealth-care improvementinclusive involvementpublic and patient involvementseldom heardunintended consequences

Identifiers

PMID34339528
PMCPMC8483209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.