Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40022206›Full record

ReviewResearch involvement and engagement2025

Deliberative dialogue for co-design, co-implementation and co-evaluation of health-promoting interventions: a scoping review protocol.

Kian Godhwani, Abimbola K Saka, Vinesha Ramasamy, Bee-Lee Soh, Mathangee Lingam, Aisha Lofters, Eva Grunfeld, David Gerstle, Peter Selby, Ambreen Sayani

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Research involvement and engagement, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Evaluating the Co-Design and Implementation of a Multicomponent Intervention to Improve Communication in Aged Care: A Nested Process Evaluation Protocol.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Kian GodhwaniWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abimbola K SakaCampbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addictions and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Vinesha RamasamyWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Bee-Lee SohWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mathangee LingamCampbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addictions and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Aisha LoftersWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Eva GrunfeldWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
David GerstleUniversity of Toronto Mississauga, Library, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.
Peter SelbyCampbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addictions and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ambreen SayaniWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Ambreen.sayani@wchospital.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5391-7769

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDeliberative dialogue (DD) is a participatory research methodology wherein stakeholders with diverse backgrounds, experiences and interests come together to engage in discussions to build consensus for collaborative decision-making. The methodology is increasingly used in health promotion research to develop equitable solutions to complex problems. A review of PubMed-indexed papers alone showed a 9% increase in published DD studies in 2024 from prior years (2020-2023), with most focusing on health promotion and service co-design. Given the increasing emphasis on multistakeholder engagement in research, there is a need to understand how DD has been used as a methodological tool for the co-design, modifications, implementation, evaluation, and knowledge dissemination of health promotion interventions. This scoping study aims to comprehensively understand the application of DD in intervention design to provide a framework to ensure DD is employed with methodological rigour. It will offer valuable insights into how its systematic use can improve the credibility, validity, and trustworthiness of study findings while respecting the principles of participation and knowledge co-production.

methodsThis scoping review follows the Arksey & O'Malley framework. The Arksey & O'Malley framework is designed to map the key concepts, types of evidence, and gaps in research, consisting of five stages: identifying research questions, selecting relevant studies, screening, data charting, and summarizing results. The research team includes decision-makers, researchers, healthcare providers involved in the co-design, co-implementation and co-evaluation of health-promoting interventions, and two patient partners with previous experience in collaborative decision-making. Searches will be performed across multiple databases such as OVID Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus databases. Studies will undergo abstract and full-text screening using Covidence. Covidence is an online platform designed to simplify the process of creating systematic and other in-depth literature reviews (including scoping reviews, rapid reviews, and meta-syntheses), abstract, full-text screening, and extraction of study details, results, and references. A data extraction template has been co-developed building on Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patient and Public (GRIPP2), which ensures comprehensive reporting of patient and public involvement in research, and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist facilitates the consistent reporting of methodologies. This data will allow us to understand how DD is used to co-design health interventions. Data extraction will be performed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer for consistency. It will then be synthesized to map how DD has been used across various stages of health promotion interventions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review does not require ethics approval as it analyzes data from existing research articles. The results will inform the development of guidelines to support methodologically rigorous DD regarding the co-design, co-implementation, and co-evaluation of health-promoting interventions.

Indexed as

Co-designCo-evaluationCo-implementationDeliberative dialogueHealth interventionsHealth promotionInterdisciplinaryKnowledge translationMultistakeholderPatient engagement

Identifiers

PMID40022206
PMCPMC11869413

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.