ReviewSSM - population health2022
Co-design for indigenous and other children and young people from priority social groups: A systematic review.
Review in SSM - population health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How has co-design been used to address vaccine hesitancy globally? A systematic review.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Pooled it
- Beyond Representation: Tokenism and Epistemic Justice in Nursing Research.Nursing inquiry · 2026Article
- An adaptive, youth-centred co-design methodology: place-based co-design centring youth and community participation.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Translating innovation into impact: a national policy dialogue on scaling and integrating evidence-based supportive text messaging into Canada's mental health care systems.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- From process to publication: the conduct and reporting of co-design in health research in the Western Pacific region.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Article
- Co-design as a participatory approach for enhancing HPV health literacy among youths: a program evaluation.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Patient and Public Involvement with Forced Migrants: An Empirical Exploration of Ethical Issues.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2025Article
- Community co-design of research intervention materials to reduce cervical cancer disparities in Appalachia.PEC innovation · 2025Article
- The Role of Power in Co-Approaches to Health Research: Insights From Spain and the United Kingdom With a Rapid Review of Reviews.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Review
- The use of co-design with young people for digital mental health support development: A systematic review.Internet interventions · 2025Review
- The processes and impacts of co-designed health interventions by and for Pacific populations: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Co-design of interventions and services with structurally marginalized populations in the context of maternal and early childhood primary care: a rapid scoping review.Primary health care research & development · 2025Article
- Codesign is the zeitgeist of our time, but what do we mean by this? A scoping review of the concept of codesign in collaborative research with young people.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Authentic co-design: an essential prerequisite to health equity in Aotearoa New Zealand.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2025Article
- Article
- Children and young people's participation in decision-making within healthcare organisations in New Zealand: An integrative review.Journal of child health care : for professionals working with children in the hospital and community · 2024Review
- A qualitative evaluation of a co-design process involving young people at risk of suicide.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Using formative research to inform a mental health intervention for adolescents living in Indian slums: the ARTEMIS study.Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health · 2024Article
- Strong Born-A First of Its Kind National FASD Prevention Campaign in Australia Led by the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) in Collaboration with the Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHOs).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Coproducing health research with Indigenous peoples.Nature medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Co-design has increasingly been posited as a useful approach for Indigenous peoples and other social groups that experience inequities. However, the relatively rapid rise in co-design rhetoric has not necessarily been accompanied by increased understanding of whether co-design works for these social groups, and how equity is addressed. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to identify the current state of co-design as theory and praxis within the context of health and/or disability related interventions or services, with a specific focus on equity considerations for Indigenous and other children and young people from priority social groups. Six electronic databases were searched systematically to identify peer-reviewed papers and grey literature (dissertation and theses) published between January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2020, and a hand-search of reference lists for selected full texts was undertaken. Results: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Although all studies used the term 'co-design', only three provided a definition of what they meant by use of the term. Nine studies described one or more theory-based frameworks and a total of 26 methods, techniques and tools were reported, with only one study describing a formal evaluation. The key mechanism by which equity was addressed appeared to be the inclusion of participants from a social group experiencing inequities within an area of interest. Conclusion: A dearth of information limits the extent to which the literature can be definitive as to whether co-design works for Indigenous and other children and young people from priority social groups, or whether co-design reduces health inequities. It is critical for quality reporting to occur regarding co-design definitions, theory, and praxis. There is an urgent requirement for evaluation research that focuses on co-design impacts and assesses the contribution of co-design to achieving equity. We also recommend culturally safe ethical processes be implemented whenever undertaking co-design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.