ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024
Co-Creation in Research: Further Reflections From the 'Co-Creating Safe Spaces' Project.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Meta-Research on the Science of Lived Experience Engagement in Mental Health and Substance Use Health Research: A Scoping Review and Qualitative Synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- "I finally found a place where I could have some safety": A mixed-methods evaluation of non-clinical safe spaces for emotional distress and/or suicidal crisis.PLOS mental health · 2026Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundApplied research using co-creation methods is rarely described or evaluated in detail. Practical evidence of co-creation processes and collaboration effectiveness is needed to better understand its complex and dynamic nature.
methodsUsing a case study design and survey method, we assessed processes of co-implementation and co-evaluation grounded in our own experiences from the Co-Creating Safe Spaces project. We examine these in the context of a published systematic framework designed to improve clarity about co-creation processes and report on how co-creation was experienced by collaborative partners.
resultsOur study showed the interconnectedness between co-implementation and co-evaluation processes and the importance of aligning research with program processes to ensure it is responsive to emergent local needs and problems. Given relatively low levels of researcher embeddedness across sites, service champions played a pivotal role in data collection. Survey findings indicated strong support for a healthy collaboration with some concerns expressed over individual partner's areas of responsibility and ability to deliver on commitments.
conclusionCo-creation can be a very robust approach to translational research but is a complex endeavour. Ongoing reflexivity and attention to relational aspects support genuine collaboration and provide a foundation for addressing challenges. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with lived experience of emotional distress and/or suicidal crisis, including researchers from both academic and non-research backgrounds, service managers, peer workers, carers and advocates, were involved in this research and authored this paper.
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.