TY - JOUR
T1 - Identifying evidence of effectiveness in the co-creation of research
T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis of the international healthcare literature
AU - Halvorsrud, Kristoffer
AU - Kucharska, Justyna
AU - Adlington, Katherine
AU - Rüdell, Katja
AU - Brown Hajdukova, Eva
AU - Nazroo, James
AU - Haarmans, Maria
AU - Rhodes, James
AU - Bhui, Kamaldeep
N1 - © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health.
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
U2 - 10.1093/pubmed/fdz126
DO - 10.1093/pubmed/fdz126
M3 - Article
C2 - 31608396
SN - 1741-3842
JO - Journal of public health (Oxford, England)
JF - Journal of public health (Oxford, England)
ER -
