Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41199273›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2025

Human-centred design thinking: a novel tool for co-creation in physical activity research.

Elise Rivera, Vivian Romero, Ralph Maddison

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Elise RiveraAppleton Institute, Central Queensland University, 44 Greenhill Road, Wayville, South Australia, 5034, Australia. e.rivera@cqu.edu.au.
Vivian RomeroMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia.
Ralph MaddisonInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Locked Bag 20001, Geelong, Victoria, 3220, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical and Research Council grant 2018698
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the substantial health benefits of physical activity across the lifespan, most youth and adults are insufficiently physically active. To combat this trend, numerous policies and interventions have been developed, many of which have had modest effects. The limited effectiveness of such interventions has been linked to the lack of or minimal community involvement. Consequently, there have been calls for solutions with greater community buy-in. In particular, there has been a rise in the use of co-creation in physical activity research, where stakeholders are engaged in understanding and defining problems and designing localised and contextual solutions. While there are many benefits to co-creation (for example, collaboration and empowerment), there are also challenges, including the underreporting of co-creation approaches and methodologies used in physical activity research. We argue that human-centred design thinking can be a tool for approaching, complementing, and elevating co-creation. We discuss human-centred design thinking and offer strengths for how it can augment co-creation, such as through the Double Diamond model, toolkits and field guides, established activities, reporting guideline's and asking different questions to spark social innovation. We also present a case study to showcase how human-centred design thinking as an approach to co-creation can look.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationEnvironment DesignExerciseHealth PromotionResearch DesignCooperative BehaviorHumansStakeholder ParticipationActive livingCo-creationCo-designDesign thinkingPhysical activity

Identifiers

PMID41199273
PMCPMC12593909

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.