Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41074077›Full record

ReviewHealth research policy and systems2025

Developing and validating the co-creation rainbow framework for intrinsic evaluation of methods: a health CASCADE structured review of models representing co-creation principles.

Danielle Marie Agnello, Niamh Smith, Mira Vogelsang, Artur Steiner, Qingfan An, Janneke de Boer, Francesca Calo, Lea Delfmann, Danielle Hutcheon, Giuliana Raffaella Longworth and 5 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health research policy and systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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
  3. Article
  4. 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

15 authors.

Danielle Marie AgnelloSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK. danielle.agnello@sund.ku.dk.
Niamh SmithSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
Mira VogelsangSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
Artur SteinerYunus Centre, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
Qingfan AnDepartment of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Janneke de BoerDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Francesca CaloFaculty of Business and Law, The Open University, Milton Keynes, England, UK.
Lea DelfmannDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Danielle HutcheonYunus Centre, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
Giuliana Raffaella LongworthSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
Quentin LoiselSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
Micaela MazzeiYunus Centre, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
Lauren McCaffreySchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
Jessica RenzellaNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sebastien ChastinSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.

Funding

European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program 956501
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe growing interest in co-creation for public health innovation highlights the need for systematic approaches to stakeholder engagement. Despite its potential, co-creation faces substantial challenges, including unresolved power dynamics, poor reporting of methods and the absence of a universally agreed-upon definition. Current research reveals substantial fragmentation in co-creation literature, with limited guidance on method selection and principle alignment. This study addresses these gaps by developing a framework for systematically evaluating method alignment with key co-creation principles, offering a structured approach to fostering more effective and adaptive collaborative processes.

methodsUsing a structured review approach based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, image-based models representing co-creation principles from academic and non-academic sources were identified and assessed. A framework was created through an iterative development process. The framework was subsequently validated by 12 geographically diverse co-creation researchers using a closed card sort method, ensuring its robustness and applicability across different research contexts.

resultsThe Co-Creation Rainbow Framework was developed by integrating key features from 20 included models, creating an individual-to-collective continuum with five sections (informing, understanding, stimulating, collaborating and collective decision-making), and three themes (engage, participate and empower). Successfully mapping 416 methods to the framework demonstrated its robust capability to differentiate and categorize co-creation methods, and reveaed nuanced variations in methodological strategies used by researchers and practitioners across different contexts.

conclusionsThe Co-Creation Rainbow Framework addresses the disconnect between theoretical and practical co-creation approaches through operationalising co-creation principles. By challenging traditional linear models and acknowledging the diversity of co-creation methods, the framework provides a nuanced and adaptable tool for systematically evaluating method alignment. The framework offers researchers and practitioners a robust tool for meaningful collaborative innovation, ultimately opening new pathways for collective problem-solving and knowledge generation.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorPublic HealthResearch DesignStakeholder ParticipationDecision MakingHumansModels, TheoreticalCo-CreationCo-DesignCo-ProductionFrameworkMethodsParticipatoryPublic healthSystem-Based methodsSystems

Identifiers

PMID41074077
PMCPMC12512873

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.