Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37735397›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2023

Strategies for enacting health policy codesign: a scoping review and direction for research.

Sarah Cusworth Walker, Barbara Baquero, Betty Bekemeier, McKenna Parnes, Kashika Arora

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Translating evidence into practice: Developing Canada's first position statement on genomics-informed oncology nursing.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2026
    Article
  8. Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Transforming Community-Based Rehabilitation Services: A National Redesign Using Experience-Based Co-Design.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

5 authors.

Sarah Cusworth Walker *Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Box 356560, Seattle, USA. secwalkr@uw.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2298-7451
Barbara Baquero *School of Public Health, University of Washington, 3980 15th Ave, Box 351621, Seattle, NE, USA.
Betty BekemeierSchool of Nursing, University of Washington, Box 357263, Seattle, USA.
McKenna ParnesDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Box 356560, Seattle, USA.
Kashika AroraSeattle Children's Hospital, 6901 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA, 98115, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStrategies for supporting evidence-informed health policy are a recognized but understudied area of policy dissemination and implementation science. Codesign describes a set of strategies potentially well suited to address the complexity presented by policy formation and implementation. We examine the health policy literature describing the use of codesign in initiatives intended to combine diverse sources of knowledge and evidence in policymaking.

methodsThe search included PubMed, MEDLINE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in November 2022 and included papers published between 1996 and 2022. Terms included codesign, health, policy, and system terminology. Title and abstracts were reviewed in duplicate and included if efforts informed policy or system-level decision-making. Extracted data followed scoping review guidelines for location, evaluation method, health focus, codesign definition, description, level of health system user input, sectors involved, and reported benefits and challenges.

resultsFrom 550 titles, 23 citations describing 32 policy codesign studies were included from multiple continents (Australia/New Zealand, 32%; UK/Europe, 32%; South America, 14%; Africa, 9%; USA/Canada 23%). Document type was primarily case study (77%). The area of health focus was widely distributed. Policy type was more commonly little p policy (47%), followed by big p policy (25%), and service innovations that included policy-enabled funding (25%). Models and frameworks originated from formal design (e.g., human-centered or participatory design (44%), political science (38%), or health service research (16%). Reported outcomes included community mobilization (50%), policy feasibility (41%), improved multisector alignment (31%), and introduction of novel ideas and critical thinking (47%). Studies engaging policy users in full decision-making roles self-reported higher levels of community mobilization and community needs than other types of engagement. DISCUSSION: Policy codesign is theoretically promising and is gaining interest among diverse health sectors for addressing the complexity of policy formation and implementation. The maturity of the science is just emerging. We observed trends in the association of codesign strategies and outcomes that suggests a research agenda in this area could provide practical insights for tailoring policy codesign to respond to local contextual factors including values, needs, and resources.

Indexed as

Health PolicyPolicy MakingAfricaAustraliaCanadaHumansCodesignCoproductionHealthPolicyScoping review

Identifiers

PMID37735397
PMCPMC10512571

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.