Establishing a health CASCADE-curated open-access database to consolidate knowledge about co-creation: novel artificial intelligence-assisted methodology based on systematic reviews

BACKGROUND: Co-creation is an approach that aims to democratize research and bridge the gap between research and practice, but the potential fragmentation of knowledge about co-creation has hindered progress. A comprehensive database of published literature from multidisciplinary sources can address this fragmentation through the integration of diverse perspectives, identification and dissemination of best practices, and increase clarity about co-creation. However, two considerable challenges exist. First, there is uncertainty about co-creation terminology, making it difficult to identify relevant literature. Second, the exponential growth of scientific publications has led to an overwhelming amount of literature that surpasses the human capacity for a comprehensive review. These challenges hinder progress in co-creation research and underscore the need for a novel methodology to consolidate and investigate the literature. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to synthesize knowledge about co-creation across various fields through the development and application of an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted selection process. The ultimate goal of this database was to provide stakeholders interested in co-creation with relevant literature. METHODS: We created a novel methodology for establishing a curated database. To accommodate the variation in terminology, we used a broad definition of co-creation that encompassed the essence of existing definitions. To filter out irrelevant information, an AI-assisted selection process was used. In addition, we conducted bibliometric analyses and quality control procedures to assess content and accuracy. Overall, this approach allowed us to develop a robust and reliable database that serves as a valuable resource for stakeholders interested in co-creation. RESULTS: The final version of the database included 13,501 papers, which are indexed in Zenodo and accessible in an open-access downloadable format. The quality assessment revealed that 20.3% (140/688) of the database likely contained irrelevant material, whereas the methodology captured 91% (58/64) of the relevant literature. Participatory and variations of the term co-creation were the most frequent terms in the title and abstracts of included literature. The predominant source journals included health sciences, sustainability, environmental sciences, medical research, and health services research. CONCLUSIONS: This study produced a high-quality, open-access database about co-creation. The study demonstrates that it is possible to perform a systematic review selection process on a fragmented concept using human-AI collaboration. Our unified concept of co-creation includes the co-approaches (co-creation, co-design, and co-production), forms of participatory research, and user involvement. Our analysis of authorship, citations, and source landscape highlights the potential lack of collaboration among co-creation researchers and underscores the need for future investigation into the different research methodologies. The database provides a resource for relevant literature and can support rapid literature reviews about co-creation. It also offers clarity about the current co-creation landscape and helps to address barriers that researchers may face when seeking evidence about co-creation

Grey Literature Synthesis on Participatory Methodologies in Aging Underrepresented Groups: A Scoping Review Protocol

This study protocol outlines a scoping review of grey literature addressing 'super diversity' impact on health services and dementia research in the UK

Systematic review of contemporary theories used for co-creation, co-design and co-production in public health

Abstract Background: There is a need to systematically identify and summarise the contemporary theories and theoretical frameworks used for co-creation, co-design and co-production in public health research. Methods: The reporting of this systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Given substantial interest in and application of co-creation, co-design and co-production, we searched PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and APA PsycINFO, from 2012 to March–April 2022. A quality assessment and data extraction for theory content was performed. Results: Of the 3,763 unique references identified through the comprehensive search strategy, 10 articles were included in the review: four articles named co-creation, two articles named co-creation and co-design, two articles named co-production and co-design, and two articles named co-design. Empowerment Theory was employed by two articles, whereas other theories (n=5) or frameworks (n=3) were employed by one article each. For the quality assessment, eight articles received a strong rating and two articles received a moderate rating. Conclusion: There is little indication of theory applications for the approaches of co-creation, co-design and co-production in public health since 2012, given ten articles were included in this review. Yet the theories described in these ten articles can be useful for developing such co-approaches in future public health research.PRE-PRINT ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION BY JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH [OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS] ON 28-03-2023. DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdad04

A review of implementation and evaluation frameworks for public health interventions to inform co-creation: a Health CASCADE study

Background: By including the needs and perspectives of relevant stakeholders, co-creation is seen as a promising approach for tackling complex public health problems. However, recommendations and guidance on how to plan and implement co-creation are lacking. By identifying and analysing existing implementation and evaluation frameworks for public health, this study aims to offer key recommendations for professional stakeholders and researchers wanting to adopt a co-creation approach to public health interventions. Methods: Firstly, PubMed and CINAHL databases were screened for articles introducing original implementation and evaluation frameworks for public health interventions. Backwards snowballing techniques were applied to the included papers. Secondly, identified frameworks were classified and relevant data extracted, including steps and constructs present in the frameworks. Lastly, recommendations were derived by conducting thematic analysis on the included frameworks. Results: Thirty frameworks were identified and data related to their nature and scope extracted. The frameworks’ prominent steps and constructs were also retrieved. Recommendations related to implementation and evaluation in the context of co-creation were included. Conclusion: When engaging in co-creation, we recommend including implementation considerations from an early stage and suggest adopting a systems thinking as a way to explore multiple levels of influence, contextual settings and systems from an early planning stage. We highlight the importance of partnering with stakeholders and suggest applying an evaluation design that is iterative and cyclical, which pays particular attention to the experience of the engaged co-creators.</p

Adult co-creators’ emotional and psychological experiences of the co-creation process: a Health CASCADE scoping review protocol

Background: There is a growing investment in the use of co-creation, reflected by an increase in co-created products, services and interventions. At the same time, a growing recognition of the significance of co-creators’ experience can be detected but there is a gap in the aggregation of the literature with regard to experience. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review is to uncover the breadth of existing empirical research on co-creation experience, how it has been defined, assessed, and its key emotional and psychological characteristics in the context of co-created products, services, or interventions among adults. Methods: The development of the search strategy was guided by the research question, Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review methodology guidelines and through collaboration with members of the Health CASCADE consortium. The results of the search and the study inclusion process will be reported in full and presented both narratively and by use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram. Comprehensive searches of relevant electronic databases (e.g., Scopus) will be conducted to identify relevant papers. Snowball searches to identify additional papers through included full-text papers will be done using the artificial intelligence tool, namely, Connected Papers. All review steps will involve at least two reviewers. Studies in English, Dutch, Chinese, Spanish and French, published from the year 1970 onwards, will be considered. Microsoft Excel software will be used to record and chart extracted data. Discussion: The resulting scoping review could provide useful insights into adult co-creators’ experience of participating in the co-creation process. An increased understanding of the role of emotional and psychological experiences of participating in co-creation processes may help to inform the co-creation process and lead to potential benefits for the co-creators’ and co-created outcome