CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 410Health Policy Implementation ScienceMental Health and Patient InvolvementInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The use of co-production, co-design and co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions: a systematic review

Open access
Grindell, Cheryl, Coates, Elizabeth, Croot, Liz, O’Cathain, Alicia·2022·BMC Health Services Research
DOI 10.1186/s12913-022-08079-yPMC PMC9264579
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Knowledge mobilisation is a term used in healthcare research to describe the process of generating, sharing and using evidence. ‘Co’approaches, such as co-production, co-design and co-creation, have been proposed as a way of overcoming the knowledge to practice gap. There is a need to understand why researchers choose to adopt these approaches, how they achieve knowledge mobilisation in the management of health conditions, and the extent to which knowledge mobilisation is accomplished. Methods: Studies that explicitly used the terms co-production, co-design or co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions were included. Web of Science, EMBASE via OvidSP, MEDLINE via OvidSP and CINHAL via EBSCO databases were searched up to April 2021. Quality assessment was carried out using the Joanna Briggs Institute qualitative quality assessment checklist. Pluye and Hong’s seven steps for mixed studies reviews were followed. Data were synthesised using thematic synthesis. Results: Twenty four international studies were included. These were qualitative studies, case studies and study protocols. Key aspects of ‘co’approaches were bringing people together as active and equal partners, valuing all types of knowledge, using creative approaches to understand and solve problems, and using iterative prototyping techniques. Authors articulated mechanisms of action that included developing a shared understanding, identifying and meeting needs, giving everyone a voice and sense of ownership, and creating trust and confidence. They believed these mechanisms could produce interventions that were relevant and acceptable to stakeholders, more useable and more likely to be implemented in healthcare. Varied activities were used to promote these mechanisms such as interviews and creative workshops. There appeared to be a lack of robust evaluation of the interventions produced so little evidence in this review that ‘co’approaches improved the management of health conditions. Conclusion: Those using ‘co’approaches believed that they could achieve knowledge mobilisation through a number of mechanisms, but there was no evidence that these led to improved health. The framework of key aspects and mechanisms of ‘co’approaches developed here may help researchers to meet the principles of these approaches. There is a need for robust evaluation to identify whether ‘co’approaches produce improved health outcomes. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020187463 .

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12913-022-08079-y

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram [19]
Fig. 1 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram [19]CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Overview of themes: key aspects, mechanisms of action, activities used and outcomes of ‘co’approaches for knowledge mobilisation in health conditions
Fig. 2 Overview of themes: key aspects, mechanisms of action, activities used and outcomes of ‘co’approaches for knowledge mobilisation in health conditionsCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 58 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Melville-Richards L, Rycroft-Malone J, Burton C, Wilkinson J. Making authentic: exploring boundary objects and bricolage in knowledge mobilisation through National Health Service-university partnerships. Evidence and Policy. 2019;2:1–23.
  2. NIHR INVOLVE. Guidance on co-producing a research project. 2019.
  3. Booth A, Sutton A, Papaioanna D. Systematic Approaches to a successful literaure review. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2012.
  4. Kothari A, McCutcheon C, Graham I, editors. How We Work Together: The Integrated Knowledge Translation Casebook. Volume 1. Vol. 1. Ottawa; 2019. Available from: https://ktpathways.ca/resources/how-we-work-together-integrated-knowledge-translation-research-network-casebook
  5. Wengel Y, McIntosh A, Cockburn-Wootten C. A critical consideration of LEGO SERIOUS PLAY methodology for tourism studies. Tourism Geography. 2019;23(2):1–23.
  6. Stickdorn M, Sneider J, editors. This Is Service Design Thinking. Basic- Tools- Cases. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers; 2010.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Grindell, C., Coates, E., Croot, L., & O’Cathain, A.
Affiliations
University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Grindell, Cheryl
ORCID
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-07-07
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
877-877
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12913-022-08079-y
PMC
PMC9264579
OpenAlex
W4284704782
Cited by
409
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 151 · 2025: 127 · 2024: 97 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 5
FWCI
12.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Sheffield Hallam University
  • University of Sheffield
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Keywords
knowledge mobilization, co-production, co-design, co-creation, knowledge-practice gap, stakeholder engagement, participatory approach, mechanism of action, iterative prototyping, creative workshops, intervention implementation
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, Health Services Research, Humans, Trust, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review