ArticleBMC health services research2024
Experiences of participants in the co-design of a community-based health service for people with high healthcare service use.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mixed methods systematic review of consumer engagement in rural health practice, research, and education.Health promotion international · 2025Pooled it
- Development of a Women's Empowerment Nurse-Led Group Intervention for Benzodiazepine and Z-Hypnotic Deprescription in Primary Healthcare: Results of a Co-Creation Process.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Co-designing interventions to increase food access: perceptions and experiences of community member end-users.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Co-Design or Faux-Design? Reflections on Co-Designing Safe Spaces for People in Emotional Distress or Suicidal Crisis in Australia.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Integrating patient and public involvement into co-design of healthcare improvement: a case study in maternity care.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Using experience-based co-design approach to address mental health issues among healthcare workers and leaders in long-term care.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Building a Virtual Community of Practice for Family and Friend Caregivers of People Living With Dementia: A Mixed-Methods Study.SAGE open nursingArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncorporating perspectives of health consumers, healthcare workers, policy makers and stakeholders through co-design is essential to design services that are fit for purpose. However, the experiences of co-design participants are poorly understood. The aim of this study is to explore the experiences and perceptions of people involved in the co-design of a new service for people with high healthcare service utilisation.
methodsA methodology informed by the principles of grounded theory was used in this qualitative study to evaluate the experiences and perceptions of co-design participants. Participants were healthcare professionals, health managers and leaders and health consumers involved in the co-design of the new service in Tasmania, Australia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and data were iteratively and concurrently collected and analysed using constant comparative analysis. Audio/audio-visual recordings of interviews were transcribed verbatim. Transcripts, memos, and an audit trail were coded for experiences and perspectives of participants.
resultsThere were thirteen participants (5 health professionals, 6 health managers and leaders, and 2 health consumers). Codes were collapsed into six sub-themes and six themes. Themes were bureaucracy hinders co-design, importance of consumers and diversity, importance of a common purpose, relationships are integral, participants expectations inform their co-design experience and learning from co-design.
conclusionMost participants reported positive aspects such as having a common purpose, valuing relationships, and having a personal motivation for participating in co-design. However, there were factors which hindered the adaptation of co-design principles and the co-design process. Our research highlights that bureaucracy can hinder co-design, that including people with lived experience is essential and the need to consider various types of diversity when assembling co-design teams. Future co-design projects could use these findings to improve the co-design experience for participants, and ultimately the outcome for communities.
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.