Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37463024›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2023

Establishing a Health CASCADE-Curated Open-Access Database to Consolidate Knowledge About Co-Creation: Novel Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Methodology Based on Systematic Reviews.

Danielle Marie Agnello, Quentin Emile Armand Loisel, Qingfan An, George Balaskas, Rabab Chrifou, Philippa Dall, Janneke de Boer, Lea Rahel Delfmann, Maria Giné-Garriga, Kunshan Goh and 7 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Co-Production Experiences in Practice From Funding to Implementation: Co-Production Experiences of Academics and Consumers in Real-World Practice.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  8. Co-Creating Organisational Health Literacy: Formative Evaluation and Feasibility Testing of OHL-Act.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

17 authors.

Danielle Marie Agnello *School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5293-0512
Quentin Emile Armand Loisel *School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0287-3908
Qingfan AnDepartment of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-0693-570X
George BalaskasInstitute of Informatics and Telecommunications, National Centre of Scientific Research Demokritos, Athens, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-6829-0441
Rabab ChrifouDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-9837-0963
Philippa DallSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1958-1517
Janneke de BoerDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-3111-4476
Lea Rahel DelfmannDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-8333-0563
Maria Giné-GarrigaDepartment of Sport Sciences, Faculty of Psychology Education and Sport Sciences, Blanquerna - Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4449-3524
Kunshan GohDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8916-0948
Giuliana Raffaella LongworthDepartment of Sport Sciences, Faculty of Psychology Education and Sport Sciences, Blanquerna - Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9063-4821
Katrina MessihaDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3383-0719
Lauren McCaffreySchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2524-977X
Niamh SmithSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9255-2528
Artur SteinerYunus Centre, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7422-8396
Mira VogelsangSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8778-7528
Sebastien ChastinSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1421-9348

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCo-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.

objectiveThis 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsThe 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.

conclusionsThis 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.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBiomedical ResearchHealth Services ResearchHumansMotivationResearch Designartificial intelligenceco-creationco-designco-productiondatabasemethodologyparticipatory

Identifiers

PMID37463024
PMCPMC10394503

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.