ArticleBMC public health2025
The processes and impacts of co-designed health interventions by and for Pacific populations: a scoping review.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 'We gout your back': a qualitative study to co-design educational gout resources with Pacific people in Aotearoa New Zealand.Health promotion international · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGlobally, Pacific peoples face significant inequities across a range of health issues. While it is increasingly recognised that Pacific communities should be partners in the development of health interventions intended to benefit them, less is understood about the effectiveness or outcomes of these processes. This scoping review aimed to explore how health interventions co-designed by Pacific communities are defined, undertaken and the health outcomes that they achieve.
methodsThis review was guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Inclusion criteria were studies using participatory approaches with Pacific communities to develop health-related interventions and reported findings. Five electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO and CINAHL) were searched, along citation searching of reference lists and grey literature sources. Database results were imported into Covidence for independent eligibility screening by two reviewers. Critical appraisal and risk of bias were assessed for the final studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists.
resultsA total of 6972 records were identified, with 21 final studies included after screening. Studies were conducted across nine different countries on a range of health issues, with diabetes prevention or management being the most common. Fifteen different terms outlining participatory methodologies were found across the 21 studies, including community-based participatory research, empowerment, participatory approaches, action research and co-design. Although definitions and descriptions of participatory processes were often lacking, in general, studies found that interventions reported positive impacts on health-related outcomes for Pacific people.
conclusionsThis review highlighted the process behind participatory research designs with Pacific communities and how these can result in positive health outcomes over time. Future research and intervention development in this area will benefit from clearer definitions and explanations of processes, strong evaluation structures implemented from the outset and longer timeframes for observation.
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.