Identifying evidence of effectiveness in the co-creation of research: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the international healthcare literature

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

To investigate and address the evidence gap on the effectiveness of co-creation/production in international health research.

Methods

An initial systematic search of previous reviews published by 22 July 2017 in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science. We extracted reported aims, elements and outcomes of co-creation/production from 50 reviews; however, reviews rarely tested effectiveness against intended outcomes. We therefore checked the reference lists in 13 included systematic reviews that cited quantitative studies involving the public/patients in the design and/or implementation of research projects to conduct meta-analyses on their effectiveness using standardized mean difference (SMD).

Results

Twenty-six primary studies were included, showing moderate positive effects for community functions (SMD = 0.56, 95%CI = 0.29–0.84, n = 11) and small positive effects for physical health (SMD = 0.25, 95%CI = 0.07–0.42, n = 9), health-promoting behaviour (SMD = 0.14, 95%CI = 0.03–0.26, n = 11), self-efficacy (SMD = 0.34, 95%CI = 0.01–0.67, n = 3) and health service access/receipt (SMD = 0.36, 95%CI = 0.21–0.52, n = 12). Non-academic stakeholders that co-created more than one research stage showed significantly favourable mental health outcomes. However, co-creation was rarely extended to later stages (evaluation/dissemination), with few studies specifically with ethnic minority groups.

Conclusions

The co-creation of research may improve several health-related outcomes and public health more broadly, but research is lacking on its longer term effects.

Related collections

Most cited references 93

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews

James Thomas, Angela Harden (2008)

Background There is a growing recognition of the value of synthesising qualitative research in the evidence base in order to facilitate effective and appropriate health care. In response to this, methods for undertaking these syntheses are currently being developed. Thematic analysis is a method that is often used to analyse data in primary qualitative research. This paper reports on the use of this type of analysis in systematic reviews to bring together and integrate the findings of multiple qualitative studies. Methods We describe thematic synthesis, outline several steps for its conduct and illustrate the process and outcome of this approach using a completed review of health promotion research. Thematic synthesis has three stages: the coding of text 'line-by-line'; the development of 'descriptive themes'; and the generation of 'analytical themes'. While the development of descriptive themes remains 'close' to the primary studies, the analytical themes represent a stage of interpretation whereby the reviewers 'go beyond' the primary studies and generate new interpretive constructs, explanations or hypotheses. The use of computer software can facilitate this method of synthesis; detailed guidance is given on how this can be achieved. Results We used thematic synthesis to combine the studies of children's views and identified key themes to explore in the intervention studies. Most interventions were based in school and often combined learning about health benefits with 'hands-on' experience. The studies of children's views suggested that fruit and vegetables should be treated in different ways, and that messages should not focus on health warnings. Interventions that were in line with these suggestions tended to be more effective. Thematic synthesis enabled us to stay 'close' to the results of the primary studies, synthesising them in a transparent way, and facilitating the explicit production of new concepts and hypotheses. Conclusion We compare thematic synthesis to other methods for the synthesis of qualitative research, discussing issues of context and rigour. Thematic synthesis is presented as a tried and tested method that preserves an explicit and transparent link between conclusions and the text of primary studies; as such it preserves principles that have traditionally been important to systematic reviewing.

0 comments Cited 1433 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders.

Sheba George, Nelida Duran, Keith Norris (2014)

To assess the experienced or perceived barriers and facilitators to health research participation for major US racial/ethnic minority populations, we conducted a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies from a search on PubMed and Web of Science from January 2000 to December 2011. With 44 articles included in the review, we found distinct and shared barriers and facilitators. Despite different expressions of mistrust, all groups represented in these studies were willing to participate for altruistic reasons embedded in cultural and community priorities. Greater comparative understanding of barriers and facilitators to racial/ethnic minorities' research participation can improve population-specific recruitment and retention strategies and could better inform future large-scale prospective quantitative and in-depth ethnographic studies.

0 comments Cited 465 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review.

Jo Brett, Sophie Staniszewska, Carole Mockford … (2014)

There is an increasing international interest in patient and public involvement (PPI) in research, yet relatively little robust evidence exists about its impact on health and social care research. To identify the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research. A systematic search of electronic databases and health libraries was undertaken from 1995 to 2009. Data were extracted and quality assessed utilizing the guidelines of the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 2009 and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Grey literature was assessed using the Dixon-Woods et al. (2005) checklist. All study types that reported the impact PPI had on the health and/or social care research study. A total of 66 studies reporting the impact of PPI on health and social care research were included. The positive impacts identified enhanced the quality and appropriateness of research. Impacts were reported for all stages of research, including the development of user-focused research objectives, development of user-relevant research questions, development of user-friendly information, questionnaires and interview schedules, more appropriate recruitment strategies for studies, consumer-focused interpretation of data and enhanced implementation and dissemination of study results. Some challenging impacts were also identified. This study provides the first international evidence of PPI impact that has emerged at all key stages of the research process. However, much of the evidence base concerning impact remains weak and needs significant enhancement in the next decade. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

0 comments Cited 388 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Public Health (Oxf)

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J Public Health (Oxf)

Journal ID (publisher-id): pubmed

Title: Journal of Public Health (Oxford, England)

Publisher: Oxford University Press

ISSN (Print): 1741-3842

ISSN (Electronic): 1741-3850

Publication date Collection: March 2021

Publication date (Electronic): 11 October 2019

Publication date PMC-release: 11 October 2019

Volume: 43

Issue: 1

Pages: 197-208

Affiliations

[1 ] Centre for Psychiatry , Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK

[2 ] Westminster University , 115 New Cavendich Street, London, W1W 6UW, UK

[3 ] East London NHS Foundation Trust , City and Hackney Centre for Mental Health, Homerton Row, London, E9 6SR, UK

[4 ] Sociology , School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Humanities, Bridgeford Street, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

Author notes

Address correspondence to Kamaldeep Bhui, E-mail: k.s.bhui@ 123456qmul.ac.uk

Article

Publisher ID: fdz126

DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdz126

PMC ID: 8042368

PubMed ID: 31608396

SO-VID: 7c7ac78b-c6e4-4b3a-983a-e614facebadd

License:

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

History

Date received : 5 April 2019

Date revision received : 3 September 2019

Date accepted : 17 September 2019

Date revision requested : 9 September 2019

Page count

Pages: 12

Funding

Funded by: Lankelly Chase Foundation, DOI 10.13039/100009223;

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 47

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 1,277

See all reference authors

Identifying evidence of effectiveness in the co-creation of research: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the international healthcare literature

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Related collections

Karger: Digital Health

Most cited references 93

Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews

A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders.

Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review.

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Article

History

Page count

Funding

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 268

Cited by 47

Most referenced authors 1,277