Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39390518›Full record

ReviewResearch involvement and engagement2024

Mechanisms for co-designing and co-producing health and social care: a realist synthesis.

Daniel Masterson, Bertil Lindenfalk, Sofia Kjellström, Glenn Robert, Marlene Ockander

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Research involvement and engagement, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Patient-centred care: is it enough?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Co-Designing Local Collaboration Between Social Services, Primary Healthcare, and the Third Sector-A Realist Process Evaluation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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.

Daniel MastersonJönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden. daniel.masterson@his.se.
Bertil LindenfalkJönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden.
Sofia KjellströmJönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden.
Glenn RobertJönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden.
Marlene OckanderJönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAnalyse reported processes of co-design and co-production in the context of health and social care to explore the underlying mechanisms that enable inclusive and reciprocal engagement. SEARCH STRATEGY: Peer review research was obtained from a prior scoping review searching eight databases consisting of all methodologies relevant to co-design or co-production in the context of health and social care services and involving service-users. METHODS OF SELECTION: Articles were included for synthesis if they reported a process of dialogue, with mutuality, insight and clarification in their engagement process. Ninety-three peer-review articles informed our programme theory development. ANALYSIS: Data relating to co-design and co-production processes were extracted and analysed through inductive, abductive, and deductive analysis leading to the development of an initial programme theory. MAIN

resultsThis realist synthesis finds that co-design and co-production can occur at different times, in part or all of the research and participatory process. There is an over reliance on the term 'co-design' or 'co-production' to convey complex engagement or participatory processes. We identified six mechanisms (intention, assets, dialogue, documentation, interpretation and understanding). Interaction between these six identified mechanisms in context, even if only brief, is important for supporting meaningful engagement, alignment and agreement within a co-design or co-production process. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The initial programme theory presented in this article provides clarity by identifying essential mechanisms which can guide the design and implementation of a range of participatory approaches. Rather than relying on a single label to convey complex participatory methods or processes, the values and principles of co-design or co-production, in combination with this programme theory, could be applied to guide implementation and reporting of specific activities within a range of research or participatory methods. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The initial programme theory was presented and piloted in a series of collaborative workshops between May 2023 and March 2024 with patient and public contributors, health professionals and researchers. This engagement process is currently underway to refine the programme theory and it is anticipated that this next phase will be completed in September 2024.

Indexed as

Co-designCo-productionDialogueHealthcareMechanismsParticipatory designParticipatory researchRealist synthesisSocial care

Identifiers

PMID39390518
PMCPMC11468303

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.