No 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.

In many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), period poverty is ubiquitous. As global poverty levels rise, period poverty is bound to rise too. The education and empowerment of women and girls particularly in LMICs are at stake. The dignity needed for menstruating people to attend to their menstrual cycle is a need rather than a luxury. Dignity is all we are asking for. Ending period poverty is no rocket science. Scotland has just spearheaded the way, demonstrating to the world, how easily period poverty can be eradicated. We encourage other countries of the world, to follow suit, particularly, governments of low-and middle-income countries. Getting rid of period poverty means getting rid of one system component, holding women and girls back, from contributing and participating fully in the economic system. The world is indeed facing unprecedented challenges, let’s not forget a parallel and equally real challenge, period poverty.

BACKGROUND Co-creation is increasingly seen as a way to democratize research and bridge the implementation gap between research and practice. Despite promises of increased effectiveness, relevance, and uptake of health interventions, progress is hindered by the lack of comprehensive and consolidated knowledge about co-creation. Assembling this knowledge into a database is a crucial step toward making co-creation a more robust, trustworthy, and evidence-based methodology. However, there are two considerable challenges to achieving this. First, there is a lack of clarity and standardization of the terminology about co-creation. Second, the rapid increase in scientific publishing means that obtaining comprehensive knowledge requires dealing with a vast body of literature, which is beyond human capacity. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to develop a curated database consolidating literature published about co-creation in diverse fields. The objectives were to pull together relevant literature for stakeholders interested in co-creation and its use, and to better understand the co-creation landscape and the potential causes of fragmentation. METHODS To comprehensively include relevant literature, this study developed a novel methodology by combining attributes of systematic review methodology (eg, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) with artificial intelligence technology. We set a broad definition of co-creation that captured the essence of existing definitions, and was inclusive of fields beyond public health, while still accommodating the variation in terminology. We then relied on artificial intelligence to effectively filter out irrelevant information. We also implemented a bibliometric analysis and a quality control procedure to assess the content and accuracy of the database. RESULTS The final version of the database includes 13,501 papers, which are indexed in Zenodo and accessible in an open-access downloadable format. The quality assessment showed that 20.35% (140/688) of the database likely contains irrelevant material, and that it captured 90.62% (58/64) of the relevant literature. Participatory, and forms of the term co-creation, occurred most frequently in the title and abstracts of included literature. Furthermore, the analysis of authorship, citations, and the source landscape, indicates that there is little collaboration within and between fields using co-creation. CONCLUSIONS This study produced a high-quality curated open-access database consolidating the literature about co-creation. In doing so, the study demonstrates that it is possible to consolidate knowledge about diffuse concepts using a combination of human and artificial intelligence. Through the bibliometric analysis, this study also visualizes the current co-creation landscape and the potential causes of fragmentation. The database lifts the main barrier that most researchers and practitioners will face in seeking evidence about co-creation, namely, the fragmentation of knowledge and the ensuing dilemma of having to deal with a vast amount of information. This database makes it possible to perform rapid literature reviews about co-creation.