ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Co-creation in research, policy engagement and advocacy: Lessons and limits from two decades of practice at the African Population and Health Research Center.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Co-creation is widely advocated in global health research and inconsistently practiced. This paper offers a reflective, practice-based synthesis of two decades of co-created research, policy engagement and advocacy at the African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC).We define co-creation through four dimensions; shared agenda setting, joint knowledge production, power sharing, and community leadership and ownership. We distinguish it from consultation, stakeholder engagement and partnership, and assess each dimension on a graded scale. To this we add a second axis: the reach of co-creation across the research-to-policy-to-advocacy interface, and the condition of the transitions between its segments. Six cases spanning evidence generation, policy processes, capacity strengthening and rights-based advocacy are assessed against both axes. Three findings emerge. Co-creation in this institution's practice is substantive where knowledge is produced and weak where authority is held. Agendas were substantively shared in four of six cases and financial resources in none. It fails at the transitions between research, policy engagement and advocacy rather than within them, at moments that were neither designed nor evaluated nor recorded. And the domains of co-creation differ systematically in the dimensions they can realize, with community leadership substantive only in rights-based advocacy. We draw practice guidance on governance, funding, community roles, transitions and assessment, and state what a single-institution insider synthesis cannot establish.
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.