Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37147918›Full record

SynthesisJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2023

Systematic Review of Contemporary Theories Used for Co-creation, Co-design and Co-production in Public Health.

Katrina Messiha, Mai J M Chinapaw, Hans C F F Ket, Qingfan An, Vinayak Anand-Kumar, Giuliana R Longworth, Sebastien Chastin, Teatske M Altenburg

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Co-Producing Training Resources to Improve Healthcare Experiences for Young Women and Reduce Gendered Health Inequalities.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Co-Design With Mothers and Professionals to Enhance Care for Mothers Experiencing Adversity: Development of the METIC Model.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Co-Designing Local Collaboration Between Social Services, Primary Healthcare, and the Third Sector-A Realist Process Evaluation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Katrina MessihaDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mai J M ChinapawDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hans C F F KetMedical Library, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Qingfan AnDepartment of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Vinayak Anand-KumarDepartment of Psychology and Methods, Jacobs University Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Giuliana R LongworthFaculty of Psychology, Education and Sport Sciences Blanquerna, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain.
Sebastien ChastinSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Teatske M AltenburgDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere 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.

methodsThe 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.

resultsOf 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.

conclusionThere 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.

Indexed as

EmpowermentPublic HealthHumansco-creationco-designco-productionpublic healththeoretical frameworktheory

Identifiers

PMID37147918
PMCPMC10470345

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.