ReviewResearch involvement and engagement2024
Mechanisms for co-designing and co-producing health and social care: a realist synthesis.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-centred care: is it enough?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2026Article
- Co-Designing an Easy-Read Adult Social Care Outcomes Measure for Older People: Approach to and Reflections on Involving People Living With Dementia and Their Supporters.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Democratising health and social care research through long-term public involvement and engagement: a qualitative process evaluation of the Community Research and Engagement Network (CoREN).Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Co-creation, co-design or co-production? Reflections on the development of urban health systems implementation strategies to improve access and quality of primary healthcare services in Bangladesh, Ghana, Nepal and Nigeria.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Article
- Co-design rationales as living documents for reporting the exchange of experiential, professional and scientific perspectives in mental health care innovation.PLOS mental health · 2026Article
- Developing a Health Education Program for the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Culturally Adapted to Ethnic and Rural Communities: Co-Design Study Using Participatory Audiovisual Methods.Journal of participatory medicine · 2025Article
- Demystifying programme theories of co-production in health and welfare: An interview study on new researchers' systems perspectives.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Learning from the community: iterative co-production of a programme to support the development of attention, regulation and thinking skills in toddlers at elevated likelihood of autism or ADHD.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Understanding the Mechanisms that Operate within CHIME: A Realist Review Protocol.HRB open 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.