Background: ‘Co-production’ is one of the key concepts in evidence-informed policy and practice – in terms of both its theoretical importance and its practical applications - being consistently discussed as the most effective strategy for mobilising evidence in policy and practice contexts. The concept of co-production was developed (almost) independently across multiple disciplines and has been employed in various policy and practice fields including environment, sustainability, and health.Aims and objectives: This paper surveys the literature to identify different meanings of co-production across different disciplinary bodies of knowledge. Such exploration is aimed at identifying the key points of convergence and divergence across different disciplinary and theoretical traditions.Methods: We performed a systematic search of Web of Science via a query designed to capture literature likely focusing on co-production, and then manually examined each document for relevance. Citation network analysis was then used to ‘map’ this literature by grouping papers into clusters based on the density of citation links between papers. The top-cited papers within each cluster were thematically analysed.Findings: This research identified five meanings of co-production, understood as a science-politics relationship, as knowledge democracy, as transdisciplinarity, as boundary management, and as an evidence-use intervention.Discussion and conclusions: Even though different clusters of scholarship exploring co-production are closely connected, this concept is mobilised to capture phenomena at different levels of abstraction – from post-structuralist theories of knowledge and power to specific strategies to be employed by researchers and policymakers.<br />Key messages<ul><li>The paper identifies five meanings of co-production: understood as a science-politics relationship, as knowledge democracy, as transdisciplinarity, as boundary management, and as an evidence-use intervention.</li><br /><li>Co-production is a multi-level phenomenon occurring at the level of socio-political systems, the level of institutions, and the level of situated practices.</li><br /><li>The paper identifies a need for definitional transparency and cross-disciplinary learning about co-production.</li></ul>

Background Community and stakeholder involvement in decision-making to determine publicly-funded health services and interventions is advocated to fulfil citizens’ rights and improve health outcomes. The inclusion of public actors, particularly disadvantaged populations, in priority setting for universal health coverage (UHC) is also enshrined in guidance from the World Health Organization (WHO). However, challenges remain in operationalising this policy aim and ensuring that these approaches are effective and equitable. This study aimed to synthesise published evidence on the role of community and stakeholder participation in determining health service coverage. Methods A systematic review was conducted, searching the Web of Science, Ovid Global Health, and PubMed Central databases from 2000 onwards, including all study types. A framework synthesis approach was used for charting and synthesising data on mechanisms, effectiveness (equity, depth, and stage), and barriers and facilitators for engagement. Results Twenty-seven relevant studies were identified that involve community actors and other stakeholders in priority setting and decision-making processes for defining health benefit packages and UHC, health technology assessment, and pharmaceutical coverage. Mechanisms of engagement include a wide variety of consultation approaches; participation in decision-making committees, advisory councils, and local planning meetings; and appeals mechanisms. Participation occurs primarily at Data and Dialogue stages of decision-making processes, and we found limited depth of engagement among identified cases. Limited consideration of equity was observed in planning and reporting on community involvement in priority setting. A number of challenges are identified in the literature, which we typologise as institutional, procedural, technical, and structural / normative barriers to meaningful participation. Conclusions This systematic review identifies key gaps and opportunities in the literature and practice related to effective and equitable community and stakeholder participation in determining health service coverage. It offers essential considerations for planning and executing inclusive approaches to priority setting for publicly-funded health services and interventions and defining health benefit packages for UHC.

No abstract