ArticleCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2026
A Co-production Evaluation Tool Informed by Co-production Workshops for Use in Evidence Synthesis Contexts.
Article in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Theorizing How Context Influences School-Based Interventions That Support Children's Weight Management: Co-Producing a Refined Logic Model.Journal of participatory medicine · 2026Article
- A Co-production Evaluation Tool Informed by Co-production Workshops for Use in Evidence Synthesis Contexts.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: We aimed to co-produce a tool for evaluating co-production within evidence syntheses. Background: Participatory approaches are recommended to enhance the salience and quality of evidence syntheses, and there is an increasing onus on co-producing evidence synthesis. Co-production is a way of working where research generators, beneficiaries and other interest holders work in equal partnership and for mutual benefit. Methods: To develop our approach, we: Examined selected existing tools and frameworks that could be useful in evaluating co-productionDeveloped an initial tool that was then modified through input from co-production workshopsPiloted the tool and evaluation approach in a project as part of research involving co-producing a logic model to support evidence syntheses. Results: The existing tools guidance and resources we examined were deemed to be oriented towards supporting the conduct and reporting of co-production, rather than evaluating what happens and how. This provided a basis for co-producing a new tool. A new tool was developed that captures our perspectives on: positionality and expertise; motivations and expected benefits; clarity of role and expectations; project involvement and contributions; value and recognition; skills, knowledge, and personal growth; relationships and networking; comfort, support, and accessibility; and decision-making and power sharing. We reflected that the tool and process for administering the tool worked well, and we liked the process of collective sensemaking. Conclusions: We believe that the tool (which we refer to as the STRAPS tool - Synthesising Through Reflection And Participatory Sense-making) could provide a useful resource and starting point to other review teams who wish to evaluate co-production in their reviews and encourage others to share their experiences with us. Implications: Co-production enhances the quality of evidence syntheses. Use of the STRAPS tool can help reviewers unpack the process by which this happens using a standardised approach.
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.