4 results on '"Agnello, Danielle Marie"'
Search Results
2. Conducting co-creation for public health in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review and key informant perspectives on implementation barriers and facilitators
- Author
-
Longworth, Giuliana Raffaella, Erikowa-Orighoye, Oritseweyinmi, Anieto, Ebuka Miracle, Agnello, Danielle Marie, Zapata-Restrepo, Jorge Raul, Masquillier, Caroline, and Giné-Garriga, Maria
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. Navigating process evaluation in co-creation: a Health CASCADE scoping review of used frameworks and assessed components.
- Author
-
Longworth GR, de Boer J, Goh K, Agnello DM, McCaffrey L, Zapata Restrepo JR, An Q, Chastin S, Davis A, Altenburg T, Verloigne M, and Giné-Garriga M
- Subjects
- Humans, Program Evaluation, Process Assessment, Health Care, Public Health
- Abstract
Background: Co-creation is seen as a way to ensure all relevant needs and perspectives are included and to increase its potential for beneficial effects and uptake process evaluation is crucial. However, existing process evaluation frameworks have been built on practices characterised by top-down developed and implemented interventions and may be limited in capturing essential elements of co-creation. This study aims to provide a review of studies planning and/or conducting a process evaluation of public health interventions adopting a co-creation approach and aims to derive assessed process evaluation components, used frameworks and insights into formative and/or participatory evaluation., Methods: We searched for studies on Scopus and the Health CASCADE Co-Creation Database. Co-authors performed a concept-mapping exercise to create a set of overarching dimensions for clustering the identified process evaluation components., Results: 54 studies were included. Conceptualisation of process evaluation included in studies concerned intervention implementation, outcome evaluation, mechanisms of impact, context and the co-creation process. 22 studies (40%) referenced ten existing process evaluation or evaluation frameworks and most referenced were the frameworks developed by Moore et al (14%), Saunders et al (5%), Steckler and Linnan (5%) and Nielsen and Randall (5%).38 process evaluation components were identified, with a focus on participation (48%), context (40%), the experience of co-creators (29%), impact (29%), satisfaction (25%) and fidelity (24%).13 studies (24%) conducted formative evaluation, 37 (68%) conducted summative evaluation and 2 studies (3%) conducted participatory evaluation., Conclusion: The broad spectrum of process evaluation components addressed in co-creation studies, covering both the evaluation of the co-creation process and the intervention implementation, highlights the need for a process evaluation tailored to co-creation studies. This work provides an overview of process evaluation components, clustered in dimensions and reflections which researchers and practitioners can use to plan a process evaluation of a co-creation process and intervention., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
4. Establishing a Health CASCADE-Curated Open-Access Database to Consolidate Knowledge About Co-Creation: Novel Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Methodology Based on Systematic Reviews.
- Author
-
Agnello DM, Loisel QEA, An Q, Balaskas G, Chrifou R, Dall P, de Boer J, Delfmann LR, Giné-Garriga M, Goh K, Longworth GR, Messiha K, McCaffrey L, Smith N, Steiner A, Vogelsang M, and Chastin S
- Subjects
- Humans, Health Services Research, Motivation, Research Design, Artificial Intelligence, Biomedical Research
- Abstract
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., (©Danielle Marie Agnello, Quentin Emile Armand Loisel, Qingfan An, George Balaskas, Rabab Chrifou, Philippa Dall, Janneke de Boer, Lea Rahel Delfmann, Maria Giné-Garriga, Kunshan Goh, Giuliana Raffaella Longworth, Katrina Messiha, Lauren McCaffrey, Niamh Smith, Artur Steiner, Mira Vogelsang, Sebastien Chastin. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 18.07.2023.)
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.