ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024
Development and Evaluation of a Framework for Authentic Online Co-Design: Partnership-Focussed Principles-Driven Online Co-Design.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Codesigning COVID-19 booster promotion materials in online workshops with long-term care staff: a process evaluation.Health education research · 2026Trial
- Co-Designing the Early Pain Intervention After Knee Replacement (EPIK) Model of Care for People With Persistent Pain After Knee Replacement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Co-Designing Lung Cancer Rehabilitation Services for People Treated With Immunotherapy.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Understanding the Scope, Intent and Extent of Published Conceptual Frameworks of Frameworks for Patient and Public Involvement in Health and Social Care Research: A Rapid Scoping Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Co-designing Approaches to Sustainable Exercise Care for People with Metabolic Dysfunction-associated Steatotic Liver Disease.Journal of clinical and translational hepatology · 2025Article
- Developing an Inclusive Dance Guide for Children With Cerebral Palsy: A Co-Design Process and Initial Feasibility Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Co-design and prototype development of MedManageSCI: a medication self-management toolkit for adults with spinal cord injury/dysfunction.BMC health services research · 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
Abstract
introductionCo-design in health research involves patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in intervention or service design. Traditionally, co-design is undertaken in-person; however, exploring online delivery is warranted. PPIE in co-design must be considered carefully, and assumptions that in-person approaches will transition automatically to an online environment should be avoided. Currently, there are a lack of evidence-informed approaches to facilitating co-design online. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a framework for authentically adapting health research co-design into an online environment. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe initial framework was developed through a literature review, synthesis of in-person co-design principles, and alignment of online strategies. The framework was then applied to a co-design project with 10 participants across relevant PPIE groups (end-users [n = 4], clinicians [n = 2], coaches [n = 2] and clinician-researchers [n = 2]). Participants' experiences of the online co-design process were evaluated via a mixed-methods design using surveys and semi-structured interviews. Evaluation data were analysed using descriptive statistics and reflexive thematic analysis to inform a revised framework.
resultsThe developed framework, Partnership-focussed Principles-driven Online co-Design (P-POD) was used to design eight 90 min online co-design workshops. Evaluation data involved 46 survey responses, and eight participants were interviewed on project completion. Survey data indicated that the process was satisfying, engaging and adhered to the P-POD framework. Themes derived from interview data describe a respectful and collaborative online culture, valuing of diverse perspectives and space for healthy debate, how power was perceived as being shared but not equal and multiple definitions of success within and beyond the process. A final, refined P-POD framework is presented.
conclusionWith evaluation of the initial P-POD framework showing evidence of adherence to co-design principles, positive participant experiences and goal achievement for both the project and the participants, the refined P-POD framework may be used and evaluated within future intervention or service design. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study involved the participants (end-users, clinicians and service providers) in the co-design process described, interpretation of the results through member-checking interview responses, assisting in development of the final framework and as co-authors for this manuscript.
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.