Search

Introduction: Co-creation is becoming increasingly popular to develop interventions that can achieve results beyond scientific findings. Workshops are one of the main ways to collect data and generate ideas in co-creation, which traditionally have been conducted at a fixed, physical location. However, organising face-to-face workshops is considered challenging, due to the transportation time, low flexibility and high costs. This study aims to investigate the online format of co-creation workshops and to discuss methodological considerations. Methods: Co-creation workshops were organised with 78 medical students, general practitioner (GP) trainees and specialist trainees from five Belgian universities. The study included four different cohorts, namely first-year bachelors (n = 12), first-year masters (n = 13), first-year GP trainees (n = 14) and first-year specialist trainees (n = 39). Three consequential online workshops were organised for each cohort, resulting in 12 workshops in total. The collected data included qualitative data (video-and audio recordings, notes from interdisciplinary team discussions, Miro boards) and quantitative data (registrations and actual attendance rates). All workshops were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed using NVivo. Results: The participants reported increased flexibility and reduced costs as main benefits of the online format. In addition, the online platforms Miro and Microsoft Teams were considered dynamic and inspiring, facilitating high levels of engagement and interactivity. However, the online format also showed some challenges, such as the need for a digitally educated population and a stable internet connection. Conclusion: This study has shown that online workshops, also in the highly interactive method of co-creation, provide a viable alternative to collect data and generate ideas. This is particularly the case, when the target population is geographically dispersed, has a high workload and is digitally educated. Online workshops, however, also face limitations and challenges that need to be considered when choosing this format. First, we would like to thank the other WeMeds consortium members, who were not involved as co-authors but who contributed significantly to the overall project, namely Prof. Dr. Dirk Devroey, Prof. Dr. Peter Pype, Prof. Dr. Roy Remmen, Prof. Dr. Wim Pinxten and Dr. Sofie vandenbroeck. In addition, we would like to express our gratitude to the students that contributed to the organisation and qualitative analyses of the workshops: Annabel Bijnens, Sofie Boghe, Sofie Van den Acker and Charlotte Vanneck. Third, we would like to thank Elke Smeers, who provided support with the logistical organisation of the online workshops. The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is part of the WeMeds study, which received internal funds from KU Leuven (Category 3) under C3/20/040.