CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,313Mental Health and Patient InvolvementHealth Policy Implementation ScienceCommunity Health and Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews

Open access
Slattery, Peter, Saeri, Alexander K., Bragge, Peter·2020·Health Research Policy and Systems
DOI 10.1186/s12961-020-0528-9PMC PMC7014755

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Billions of dollars are lost annually in health research that fails to create meaningful benefits for patients. Engaging in research co-design – the meaningful involvement of end-users in research – may help address this research waste. This rapid overview of reviews addressed three related questions, namely (1) what approaches to research co-design exist in health settings? (2) What activities do these research co-design approaches involve? (3) What do we know about the effectiveness of existing research co-design approaches? The review focused on the study planning phase of research, defined as the point up to which the research question and study design are finalised. Methods: Reviews of research co-design were systematically identified using a rapid overview of reviews approach (PROSPERO: CRD42019123034). The search strategy encompassed three academic databases, three grey literature databases, and a hand-search of the journal Research Involvement and Engagement . Two reviewers independently conducted the screening and data extraction and resolved disagreements through discussion. Disputes were resolved through discussion with a senior author (PB). One reviewer performed quality assessment. The results were narratively synthesised. Results: A total of 26 records (reporting on 23 reviews) met the inclusion criteria. Reviews varied widely in their application of ‘research co-design’ and their application contexts, scope and theoretical foci. The research co-design approaches identified involved interactions with end-users outside of study planning, such as recruitment and dissemination. Activities involved in research co-design included focus groups, interviews and surveys. The effectiveness of research co-design has rarely been evaluated empirically or experimentally; however, qualitative exploration has described the positive and negative outcomes associated with co-design. The research provided many recommendations for conducting research co-design, including training participating end-users in research skills, having regular communication between researchers and end-users, setting clear end-user expectations, and assigning set roles to all parties involved in co-design. Conclusions: Research co-design appears to be widely used but seldom described or evaluated in detail. Though it has rarely been tested empirically or experimentally, existing research suggests that it can benefit researchers, practitioners, research processes and research outcomes. Realising the potential of research co-design may require the development of clearer and more consistent terminology, better reporting of the activities involved and better evaluation.

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/s12961-020-0528-9

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram for rapid overview of reviews in health research co-design
Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram for rapid overview of reviews in health research co-designCC 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 54 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Oliver S, Gray J. A bibliography of research reports about patients’, clinicians’ and researchers’ priorities for new research. London: James Lind Alliance; 2006.
  2. Tricco AC, Langlois EV, Straus SE. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide. Geneva: Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research World Health Organization; 2017.
  3. Veritas health innovation covidence systematic review software. Melbourne.https://www.covidence.org/home. Accessed 31 Jan 2020.
  4. INVOLVE. Guidance on co-producing a research project. Southampton: INVOLVE; 2018.
  5. INVOLVE. Co-production in action: number one. Southampton: INVOLVE; 2019.
  6. Algate F, Gallagher R, Nguyen S, Ruda S, Sanders M (2014) EAST: four simple ways to apply behavioural insights. https://www.bi.team/publications/east-four-simple-ways-to-apply-behavioural-insights/. Accessed 31 Jan 2020.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 701–800 of 1,000

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Slattery, P., Saeri, A. K., & Bragge, P.
Affiliations
Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
Slattery, Peter
ORCID
Venue
Health Research Policy and Systems
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-02-11
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
17-17
ISSN
1478-4505 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12961-020-0528-9
PMC
PMC7014755
OpenAlex
W3008652539
Cited by
1,313
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 259 · 2025: 311 · 2024: 315 · 2023: 188 · 2022: 132 · 2021: 97 · 2020: 10
FWCI
20.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Health Research Policy and Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Transport Accident Commission
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Community Health and Development
Keywords
research co-design, end-user involvement, patient and public involvement, research waste, learning planning, research engagement
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Humans, Interinstitutional Relations, Research Design, Biomedical Research, Community-Based Participatory 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