Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40050729›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025

Co-creation methods for public health research - characteristics, benefits, and challenges: a Health CASCADE scoping review.

Danielle Marie Agnello, Vinayak Anand-Kumar, Qingfan An, Janneke de Boer, Lea Rahel Delfmann, Giuliana Raffaella Longworth, Quentin Loisel, Lauren McCaffrey, Artur Steiner, Sebastien Chastin

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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

42 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Co-Designing Physical Activity Programmes: A Participatory Research Study With Culturally Diverse Women and Local Government.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Co-Producing Training Resources to Improve Healthcare Experiences for Young Women and Reduce Gendered Health Inequalities.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Co-Creation of Interventions to Promote Critical Health Literacy in the Community: Study Protocol.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Danielle Marie AgnelloSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, Scotland, G4 0BA, UK. danielle.agnello@gcu.ac.uk.
Vinayak Anand-KumarSchool of Business, Social and Decision Sciences, Constructor University, Bremen, Germany.
Qingfan AnDepartment of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Janneke de BoerDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Lea Rahel DelfmannDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Giuliana Raffaella LongworthDepartment of Sport Sciences, Faculty of Psychology Education and Sport Sciences Blanquerna, Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Spain.
Quentin LoiselSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, Scotland, G4 0BA, UK.
Lauren McCaffreySchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, Scotland, G4 0BA, UK.
Artur SteinerYunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
Sebastien ChastinSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, Scotland, G4 0BA, UK.

Funding

the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant 956501
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCo-creation engages diverse stakeholders, including marginalized populations, in collaborative problem-solving to enhance engagement and develop contextually appropriate solutions. It is increasingly recognized as a way to democratize research and improve the impact of interventions, services, and policies. However, the lack of synthesized evidence on co-creation methods limits methodological rigor and the establishment of best practices. This review aimed to identify co-creation methods in academic literature and analyze their characteristics, target groups, and associated benefits and challenges.

methodsThis scoping review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. The search was conducted in the Health CASCADE database v1.5 (including CINAHL, PubMed, and 17 additional databases via ProQuest) from January 1970 to March 2022. Data was aggregated and summarized, with qualitative data analyzed using Braun and Clarke's six-phase thematic analysis approach.

resultsThe review included 266 articles, identifying 248 distinct co-creation methods published between 1998 and 2022. Most methods were rooted in participatory paradigms (147 methods), with 49 methods derived from co-approaches like co-creation, co-design, and co-production, and 11 from community-based health promotion and action research. Methods were applied across 40 target populations, including children, adults, and marginalized groups. Many methods (62.3%) were delivered face-to-face, with 40 articles incorporating digital tools. Thematic analysis revealed nine benefits, such as enhanced creativity, empowerment, and improved communication, and six challenges, including resource constraints and systemic and structural barriers.

conclusionThis review emphasizes the importance of robust documentation and analysis of co-creation methods to inform their application in public health. Findings support the development of collaborative co-creation processes that are responsive to the needs of diverse populations, thereby enhancing the overall effectiveness and cultural sensitivity of the outcomes. This review highlights the potential of co-creation methods to promote equity and inclusion while emphasizing the importance of evaluating and selecting methods tailored to specific objectives, offering a critical resource for planning, conducting, and evaluating co-creation projects.

Indexed as

Public HealthHumansResearch DesignCo-creationCo-designCo-productionMethodsParticipatoryPublic healthScoping review

Identifiers

PMID40050729
PMCPMC11884017

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.