ArticleBMJ global health2024
Navigating process evaluation in co-creation: a Health CASCADE scoping review of used frameworks and assessed components.
Article in BMJ global health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Co-adapting a healthy sleep intervention with adolescents: impact and process evaluation of a Health CASCADE pilot study.BMC public health · 2025Trial
- Process evaluation of an intervention developed using a participatory approach targeting school-related sedentary behaviour among adolescents.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Preventing smoking initiation among vulnerable adolescents: a process evaluation of the KickAsh!-intervention in Flemish youth social work settings.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026Article
- Opening the black box of co-creation: exploring process delivery, stakeholder experiences and perceived outcomes in the development of a family-based healthy weight development intervention for infants.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Co-Develop-IT! Unifying Methodological Guideline for the Co-Design, Development, and Evaluation of Individually Tailored Technology-Enhanced Training and Rehabilitation Concepts: Consensus Development Study and Tutorial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Moving forward, leaving the patients behind? A multilevel assessment framework for evaluating patient-centred, integrated care quality.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Review
- Evaluating the Alliance against Violence and Adversity Online Training Program: an online curriculum to support children, women, and gender-diverse people.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Co-creation of the logic model for a health-promoting school program in vulnerable areas in a Brazilian capital: ProMOVE Escolas + Saudáveis.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Your project or our project? Evaluating the participatory development of an adolescent healthy sleep intervention.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Co-creating mental health promotion and prevention interventions with groups in vulnerable situations in Europe: a mixed-methods study protocol for co-creation implementation and participatory evaluation.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- School staff experiences on involvement in a co-creation process: a Health CASCADE scoping review and thematic synthesis.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Exploring co-adaptation for public health interventions: insights from a rapid review and interviews.BMC public health · 2025Review
- Article
- From humans to AI: understanding why AI is perceived as the preferred co-creation partner.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCo-creation is seen as a way to ensure all relevant needs and perspectives are included and to increase its potential for beneficial effects and uptake process evaluation is crucial. However, existing process evaluation frameworks have been built on practices characterised by top-down developed and implemented interventions and may be limited in capturing essential elements of co-creation. This study aims to provide a review of studies planning and/or conducting a process evaluation of public health interventions adopting a co-creation approach and aims to derive assessed process evaluation components, used frameworks and insights into formative and/or participatory evaluation.
methodsWe searched for studies on Scopus and the Health CASCADE Co-Creation Database. Co-authors performed a concept-mapping exercise to create a set of overarching dimensions for clustering the identified process evaluation components.
results54 studies were included. Conceptualisation of process evaluation included in studies concerned intervention implementation, outcome evaluation, mechanisms of impact, context and the co-creation process. 22 studies (40%) referenced ten existing process evaluation or evaluation frameworks and most referenced were the frameworks developed by Moore
conclusionThe broad spectrum of process evaluation components addressed in co-creation studies, covering both the evaluation of the co-creation process and the intervention implementation, highlights the need for a process evaluation tailored to co-creation studies. This work provides an overview of process evaluation components, clustered in dimensions and reflections which researchers and practitioners can use to plan a process evaluation of a co-creation process and intervention.
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.