Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38964878›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2024

Navigating process evaluation in co-creation: a Health CASCADE scoping review of used frameworks and assessed components.

Giuliana Raffaella Longworth, Janneke de Boer, Kunshan Goh, Danielle Marie Agnello, Lauren McCaffrey, Jorge Raul Zapata Restrepo, Qingfan An, Sebastien Chastin, Aaron Davis, Teatske Altenburg and 2 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

12 authors.

Giuliana Raffaella LongworthFaculty of Psychology, Education and Sport Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain giulianaraffaellal@blanquerna.url.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9063-4821
Janneke de BoerDepartment of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.
Kunshan GohDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Danielle Marie AgnelloSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Lauren McCaffreySchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Jorge Raul Zapata RestrepoFaculty of Psychology, Education and Sport Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain.
Qingfan AnDepartment of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Umeå University, Umea, Sweden.
Sebastien ChastinDepartment of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.
Aaron DavisUniSA Creative, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Teatske AltenburgDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Maite VerloigneDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.
Maria Giné-GarrigaFaculty of Psychology, Education and Sport Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Public HealthHumansProcess Assessment, Health CareProgram EvaluationHealth systems evaluationPublic HealthReview

Identifiers

PMID38964878
PMCPMC11227756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.