Kristoffer Halvorsrud1, Justyna Kucharska1,2, Katherine Adlington3, Katja Rüdell1, Eva Brown Hajdukova1, James Nazroo4, Maria Haarmans4, James Rhodes4, Kamaldeep Bhui1. 1. Centre for Psychiatry, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK. 2. Westminster University, 115 New Cavendich Street, London, W1W 6UW, UK. 3. East London NHS Foundation Trust, City and Hackney Centre for Mental Health, Homerton Row, London, E9 6SR, UK. 4. Sociology, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Humanities, Bridgeford Street, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate and address the evidence gap on the effectiveness of co-creation/production in international health research. METHODS: An initial systematic search of previous reviews published by 22 July 2017 in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science. We extracted reported aims, elements and outcomes of co-creation/production from 50 reviews; however, reviews rarely tested effectiveness against intended outcomes. We therefore checked the reference lists in 13 included systematic reviews that cited quantitative studies involving the public/patients in the design and/or implementation of research projects to conduct meta-analyses on their effectiveness using standardized mean difference (SMD). RESULTS: Twenty-six primary studies were included, showing moderate positive effects for community functions (SMD = 0.56, 95%CI = 0.29-0.84, n = 11) and small positive effects for physical health (SMD = 0.25, 95%CI = 0.07-0.42, n = 9), health-promoting behaviour (SMD = 0.14, 95%CI = 0.03-0.26, n = 11), self-efficacy (SMD = 0.34, 95%CI = 0.01-0.67, n = 3) and health service access/receipt (SMD = 0.36, 95%CI = 0.21-0.52, n = 12). Non-academic stakeholders that co-created more than one research stage showed significantly favourable mental health outcomes. However, co-creation was rarely extended to later stages (evaluation/dissemination), with few studies specifically with ethnic minority groups. CONCLUSIONS: The co-creation of research may improve several health-related outcomes and public health more broadly, but research is lacking on its longer term effects.
BACKGROUND: To investigate and address the evidence gap on the effectiveness of co-creation/production in international health research. METHODS: An initial systematic search of previous reviews published by 22 July 2017 in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science. We extracted reported aims, elements and outcomes of co-creation/production from 50 reviews; however, reviews rarely tested effectiveness against intended outcomes. We therefore checked the reference lists in 13 included systematic reviews that cited quantitative studies involving the public/patients in the design and/or implementation of research projects to conduct meta-analyses on their effectiveness using standardized mean difference (SMD). RESULTS: Twenty-six primary studies were included, showing moderate positive effects for community functions (SMD = 0.56, 95%CI = 0.29-0.84, n = 11) and small positive effects for physical health (SMD = 0.25, 95%CI = 0.07-0.42, n = 9), health-promoting behaviour (SMD = 0.14, 95%CI = 0.03-0.26, n = 11), self-efficacy (SMD = 0.34, 95%CI = 0.01-0.67, n = 3) and health service access/receipt (SMD = 0.36, 95%CI = 0.21-0.52, n = 12). Non-academic stakeholders that co-created more than one research stage showed significantly favourable mental health outcomes. However, co-creation was rarely extended to later stages (evaluation/dissemination), with few studies specifically with ethnic minority groups. CONCLUSIONS: The co-creation of research may improve several health-related outcomes and public health more broadly, but research is lacking on its longer term effects.
Authors: C Chen; V H Ahlqvist; P Henriksson; J H Migueles; F Christiansen; M R Galanti; D Berglind Journal: Trials Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Helen Smith; Luke Budworth; Chloe Grindey; Isabel Hague; Natalie Hamer; Roman Kislov; Peter van der Graaf; Joe Langley Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2022-04-02
Authors: Inga Gruß; Gretchen M McCreary; Ilya Ivlev; Mary Ellen Houlihan; Barbara P Yawn; Cara Pasquale; William Clark; Richard A Mularski Journal: J Patient Rep Outcomes Date: 2021-12-04
Authors: Nina Zipfel; Bedra Horreh; Carel T J Hulshof; Angela G E M de Boer; Sylvia J van der Burg-Vermeulen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Yolanda Álvarez-Pérez; Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez; Amado Rivero-Santanta; Alezandra Torres-Castaño; Ana Toledo-Chávarri; Andrea Duarte-Díaz; Vinita Mahtani-Chugani; María Dolores Marrero-Díaz; Alessia Montanari; Sabina Tangerini; Carina González-González; Michelle Perello; Pedro Serrano-Aguilar Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 3.390