ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2025
Evaluating co-design processes used in the development of healthcare interventions in residential aged care: a scoping review.
Article in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review on using intervention mapping to guide behavioral interventions for improving stroke patient outcomes.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Building meaningful relationships through co-design: reflections from a participatory multi-year research partnership to create MedManageSCI.Frontiers in health services · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCo-design is increasingly used in residential aged care research. However, there is limited literature on how these co-design processes are evaluated, particularly in the absence of co-design evaluation frameworks developed specifically for this setting. We examined how co-design processes used with residents and informal carers to develop healthcare interventions in residential aged care are evaluated.
methodsSix electronic databases were searched, and 4594 studies reporting co-design of healthcare interventions with older adults and/or informal carers in residential aged care were screened. Data extraction included study characteristics and co-design evaluation practices.
resultsOf 22 included studies, six evaluated their co-design process. Narrative reflection was the most common approach (n = 4). Evaluation was predominantly retrospective and based on researchers' reflections, drawing on data collected during the process. No studies used pre-defined evaluation criteria to measure the impact or effectiveness of the co-design process, or if the process meaningfully involved residents or their informal carers.
conclusionCo-design is increasingly used in residential aged care research, although evaluation of these processes is uncommon. As a result, little is known about how effectively co-design is being applied in this setting, or whether it is achieving its core aim of meaningfully involving end-users in research.
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.