‘Codesign’ and associated terms such as ‘coproduction’ or ‘patient engagement’, are increasingly common in the health research literature, due to an increased emphasis on the importance of ensuring that research related to service/systems development is meaningful to end-users.  However, there continues to be a lack of clarity regarding the key principles and practices of codesign, and wide variation in the extent to which service users are meaningfully engaged in the process. These issues are particularly acute when end-users include populations who have significant health and healthcare disparities that are linked to a range of intersecting vulnerabilities (eg, poverty, language barriers, age, disability, minority status, stigmatised conditions).  The purpose of this paper is to prompt critical reflection on the nature of codesign research with vulnerable populations, including key issues to consider in the initial planning phases, the implementation process, and final outputs.  Risks and tensions will be identified in each phase of the process, followed by a tool to foster reflexivity in codesign processes to address these issues.

Background: Co-design is an approach to engaging stakeholders in health and social system change that is rapidly gaining traction, yet there are also questions about the extent to which there is meaningful engagement of structurally vulnerable communities and whether co-design leads to lasting system change. The McMaster University Co-Design Hub with Vulnerable Populations Hub (‘the Hub’) is a three-year interdisciplinary project with the goal of facilitating partnerships, advancing methods of co-design with vulnerable populations, and mobilising knowledge.Aims and objectives: A developmental evaluation approach inspired by experience-based co-design was used to co-produce a theory of change to understand how the co-design process could be used to creatively co-design a co-design hub with structurally vulnerable populations.Methods: Twelve community stakeholders with experience participating in a co-design project were invited to participate in two online visioning events to co-develop the goals, priorities, and objectives of the Hub. Qualitative data were analysed using a thematic content analysis approach.Findings: A theory of change framework was co-developed that outlines a future vision for the Hub and strategies to achieve this, and a visual graphic is presented.Discussion and conclusions: Through critical reflection on the work of the Hub, we focus on the co-creative methods that were applied when co-designing the Hub’s theory of change. Moreover, we illustrate how co-creative processes can be applied to embrace the complexity and vulnerability of all stakeholders and plan for system change with structurally vulnerable populations.<br />Key messages<br /><ol><li>Co-design processes are complex, requiring vulnerability, trust, flexibility, and a willingness to create and sustain change.</li><br /><ol>Innovative co-creation methods can elicit diverse experiences and impact change in services, systems, and policies.</ol></ol>

Background This research fuses the experiences of a precancer diagnosis with the decision-making surrounding a vaccine that can protect against human papillomavirus strains that women may not have been exposed to. The interviewee cohort is of note as half the women were in their 30s and 40s and 75% were over the age of 26. These groupings are often overlooked in media discourses and narrative research surrounding human papillomavirus and the human papillomavirus vaccine. Purpose Womens' diagnoses and treatment experiences, including colposcopies, biopsies, and Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedures, are chronicled to highlight a liminal, precancerous state-one in which they are not deemed healthy, but nor have they been diagnosed with cancer. These are emotion-filled experiences that are ridden with anxiety and fear, but also ones that are structured with self-care strategies to contain human papillomavirus infections and the risk of cervical cancer. Methods Twenty women who attended Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre's human papillomavirus vaccination clinic were interviewed and their narratives were documented and analyzed to determine their experiences surrounding human papillomavirus infections and precancer as well as their motivations for human papillomavirus vaccination. Results The decision to undergo human papillomavirus vaccination was a self-care strategy that accompanied treatment procedures and was a means to reduce cervical cancer risk. While encouraged with the human papillomavirus vaccine's potential to curb cervical cancer, they had a tempered view of the vaccine and its effectiveness in their cases, given their medical histories. Conclusions The research provides an in-depth accounting of an often overlooked grouping in human papillomavirus and human papillomavirus vaccination research and media discourse which, generally, focuses upon middle-school-aged girls and university-/college-aged women. In addition, the research provides recommendations for practice for cervical precancer diagnoses going forward.

No abstract

No abstract