Search

Background There is a need to systematically identify and summarize the contemporary theories and theoretical frameworks used for co-creation, co-design and co-production in public health research. Methods The reporting of this systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Given substantial interest in and application of co-creation, co-design and co-production, we searched PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and APA PsycINFO from 2012 to March–April 2022. A quality assessment and data extraction for theory content was performed. Results Of the 3763 unique references identified through the comprehensive search strategy, 10 articles were included in the review: four articles named co-creation, two articles named co-creation and co-design, two articles named co-production and co-design, and two articles named co-design. Empowerment Theory was employed by two articles, whereas other theories (n = 5) or frameworks (n = 3) were employed by one article each. For the quality assessment, eight articles received a strong rating and two articles received a moderate rating. Conclusion There is little indication of theory applications for the approaches of co-creation, co-design and co-production in public health since 2012, given 10 articles were included in this review. Yet, the theories described in these 10 articles can be useful for developing such co-approaches in future public health research.

When school-based actions are co-created students often fulfil the role of co-creator as they are the target population. Successful implementation of these school-based actions is very important for its effectiveness and this is mostly done by school staff, which makes them important stakeholders. Hence, school staff should also be involved in the co-creation process. To know how to involve them in a way that aligns with their job obligations, it is essential to investigate how school staff experiences their involvement as co-creator. Therefore, this scoping review aims to answer the following question; in their role as co-creator, what are the experiences of school staff about their involvement in the co-creation school-based actions?

This registration entails the protocol of a scoping review titled: "Co-created interventions among children and adolescents targeting physical activity or sedentary behaviour at school: A scoping review". This review will map and provide an overview of the available evidence about: (1) The impact of co-created interventions, targeting primary or secondary school pupils’ physical activity or sedentary behaviour at school, on pupils’ physical activity and sedentary behaviour, related determinants and health outcomes. (2) The impact of co-creating interventions, targeting primary or secondary school pupils’ physical activity or sedentary behaviour at school, on personal co-creation-related outcomes. (3) The impact of co-creating interventions, targeting primary or secondary school pupils' physical activity or sedentary behaviour at school, on the process evaluation of the intervention. Study inclusion will be based on the following criteria: - Studies including children and adolescents of any country attending primary or secondary education are considered eligible for inclusion in this review. Studies looking at a particular group of pupils with a disability or a clinical population (e.g. overweight or obese pupils) will be excluded. - Studies will be included if there was (at least) shared decision making between researchers and children/adolescents, as referred to by level 6 of Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation (i.e. partnership), during the development of a health promoting intervention targeting physical activity and/or sedentary behaviour at school. Studies targeting a specific aspect of physical activity or sedentary behaviour at school (e.g. increasing physical activity levels during physical education classes or playground interventions) will be included as well. Intervention studies targeting active transport to/from school will be excluded as this health behaviour extends beyond the school setting. - Studies will be included when one or more of the following outcomes were measured and reported: (1) the impact of co-creation on personal co-creation-related outcomes of pupils with a co-creative role (e.g. empowerment, sense of ownership, skills,…), (2) the impact of co-creation on the process evaluation of the intervention by pupils with a co-creative role, their peers or other stakeholders (e.g. perceived relevance, attractiveness,… of the intervention), (3) the impact of co-created interventions on physical activity and sedentary behaviour, related determinants and health outcomes of pupils with a co-creative role and their peers.

This is a protocol for a scoping review. This scoping review focuses on creating an overview of systems frameworks for childhood obesity prevention.

Background: Conceptual clarity is needed for co-creation, co-production and co-design by categorising the contemporary theories (including theoretical frameworks) used in each, in the context of public health research. Methods: The reporting of this systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We systematically searched PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and APA PsycINFO from 2012 as markedly arisen interest in co-creation, co-production and co-design, until March-April 2022. A quality assessment was performed in addition to data extraction for theory content. Results: Of the 3,763 unique references identified through the comprehensive search strategy, 10 articles were included in the review: four articles named co-creation, two articles named co-creation and co-design, two articles named co-production and co-design, and two articles named co-design. Empowerment Theory was employed by two articles, while the other theories were only employed by one article. For the quality assessment, eight articles received a strong rating and two articles received a moderate rating. Conclusions: Based on the few articles included in this review – little progress has been made over the last ten years. Yet the theories described in this review may help to identify theories useful for developing co-creation, co-design and co-production in public health research.

Worldwide, obesity levels are rising, both in children and in adults. Since obesity tracks from childhood to adulthood, preventive strategies in childhood are required with schools being an excellent setting. In order to prevent research waste and maximise scientific gain from studies across the globe, a set of agreed key outcomes (i.e. a core outcome set) to be measured in school-based overweight (including obesity) prevention studies is recommended. To summarize all outcomes reported in school-based interventions studies on overweight prevention is a first step in establishing a core outcome set.

Background Research with claims of co-creation, co-production and co-design in the domain of public health has become increasingly popular given the promise they retain as concepts and approaches. Despite the overlap across these terms, there is a perpetual need to gain conceptual clarity on co-creation, co-production and co-design by reinforcing the explicit contemporary theories used in context of public health. Findings For incorporation in this systematic review, peer-reviewed articles must name a theory/ theoretical framework in relation to its use explicitly for either the terms “co-creation”, “co-production” or “co-design” in capacity of public health research. This includes: (1) theor* that relates to co-creation/ co-production/ co-design involving any or all parts of its process or particular elements; single study design and protocol papers; theor* used for data analysis/ interpretation relating to comprehending feedback on co-creation/ co-production/ co-design from the co-creators/ ‘participants’/ stakeholders. The conduct and reporting of this systematic review is compatible with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-statement. A comprehensive and electronically-based search strategy has been nominated as a means of identifying eligible articles, published from 2012 as denoting the ‘contemporary’ period, and indexed in four databases, namely: PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and APA PsycINFO. Literature searches in PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and APA PsycINFO were performed from inception up to March-April 2022, in collaboration with a medical information specialist. The search strategy was trialled to ensure a suitable fit for results pertaining to the review’s scope, and is thus focused to include only theor* (theory and theoretical frameworks) and co-creation/ co-production/ co-design. No terms for public health are to be included to make sure that all relevant articles are considered. The reference list of included articles are to be compared with the inclusion criteria in a manual way to make sure that additional studies that could be rendered eligible are able to be identified outside the main search strategy. In line with responding to the research questions of this systematic review, the data which will be extracted for the analysis will have two applications relating to both theory content and quality appraisal of the reported methodological quality of the included articles. Discussion Despite various research integrating named theory for co-creation, co-production and co-design in public health, to date, this has not been systematically reviewed and consolidated to the best of our awareness. To this end, this systematic review endeavours to fill this gap; by systematically identifying and summarising the contemporary theories employed for co-creation, co-production and co-design research in the field of public health. This will aid in offering clarity to future researchers interested in pursuing this field, to help inform and guide their endeavours around intervention development as well as give rise to the promotion of public health. Key words: Theory, Theoretical Framework, Co-creation, Co-production, Co-design, Public Health, Availability of Data and Materials The protocol of the systematic review is submitted to the community page of Health CASCADE on Zenodo in addition to PROSPERO. Whilst the protocol will not seek publication in a journal, the resulting systematic review manuscript will aim for publication to a suitable journal. The dissemination outputs can be provided to the Health CASCADE network members as a means of raising awareness and promoting knowledge about the contemporary theories used for co-creation, co-production and co-design in public health.