Evaluation of research co-design in health: a systematic overview of reviews and development of a framework
- Author(s)
- Peters, S; Guccione, L; Francis, J; Best, S; Tavender, E; Curran, J; Davies, K; Rowe, S; Palmer, VJ; Klaic, M;
- Details
- Publication Year 2024-09-11,Volume 19,Issue #1,Page 63
- Journal Title
- Implementation Science
- Publication Type
- Review
- Abstract
- BACKGROUND: Co-design with consumers and healthcare professionals is widely used in applied health research. While this approach appears to be ethically the right thing to do, a rigorous evaluation of its process and impact is frequently missing. Evaluation of research co-design is important to identify areas of improvement in the methods and processes, as well as to determine whether research co-design leads to better outcomes. We aimed to build on current literature to develop a framework to assist researchers with the evaluation of co-design processes and impacts. METHODS: A multifaceted, iterative approach, including three steps, was undertaken to develop a Co-design Evaluation Framework: 1) A systematic overview of reviews; 2) Stakeholder panel meetings to discuss and debate findings from the overview of reviews and 3) Consensus meeting with stakeholder panel. The systematic overview of reviews included relevant papers published between 2000 and 2022. OVID (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO), EBSCOhost (Cinahl) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews were searched for papers that reported co-design evaluation or outcomes in health research. Extracted data was inductively analysed and evaluation themes were identified. Review findings were presented to a stakeholder panel, including consumers, healthcare professionals and researchers, to interpret and critique. A consensus meeting, including a nominal group technique, was applied to agree upon the Co-design Evaluation Framework. RESULTS: A total of 51 reviews were included in the systematic overview of reviews. Fifteen evaluation themes were identified and grouped into the following seven clusters: People (within co-design group), group processes, research processes, co-design context, people (outside co-design group), system and sustainment. If evaluation methods were mentioned, they mainly included qualitative data, informal consumer feedback and researchers' reflections. The Co-Design Evaluation Framework used a tree metaphor to represent the processes and people in the co-design group (below-ground), underpinning system- and people-level outcomes beyond the co-design group (above-ground). To evaluate research co-design, researchers may wish to consider any or all components in the tree. CONCLUSIONS: The Co-Design Evaluation Framework has been collaboratively developed with various stakeholders to be used prospectively (planning for evaluation), concurrently (making adjustments during the co-design process) and retrospectively (reviewing past co-design efforts to inform future activities).
- Publisher
- BioMed Central
- Keywords
- Humans; *Research Design; Stakeholder Participation; Health Services Research/organization & administration; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Health Personnel; Consumer participation; End-user engagement; Evaluation; Outcome measures; Research co-design; Stakeholder involvement
- Department(s)
- Health Services Research
- Publisher's Version
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01394-4
- Open Access at Publisher's Site
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01394-4- Terms of Use/Rights Notice
- Refer to copyright notice on published article.
Creation Date: 2024-10-01 07:30:49
Last Modified: 2024-10-01 07:37:32