Co-designing an Early Menopause Digital Resource: Model for Interdisciplinary Knowledge Translation

Yeganeh, Ladan; Johnston-Ataata, Kate; Vincent, Amanda; Flore, Jacinthe; Kokanović, Renata; Teede, Helena; Boyle, Jacqueline

doi:10.1055/s-0041-1726273

Cited by 8 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bringing diverse people together as active and equal partners Forming collaborations between different stakeholders was considered critical (29,32, 36, 38,42,47). Authors believed that partnership working led to the sharing of goals (35), responsibilities and decision making throughout the process (27,30,31,44,47, 48).…”

Section: Key Aspects Of 'Co' Approaches For Knowledge Mobilisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of the studies were qualitative case studies (27-29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38-41, 50). Five of these studies collected and presented survey data alongside the narrative data (30,42,43,48,49). Three papers were qualitative study protocols (31,37,47).…”

Section: Characteristics Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Authors described that by bringing diverse groups of people together, pooling their 'creative assets' (29), and considering and valuing their different types of knowledge, expertise and perspectives, they could produce outputs that were tailored to everyone's needs (29,32,38,41,42,46,47,50). They felt that by including people with lived experience of a health condition in the process they were able to contribute their unique perspectives and ideas (29,32,35,48) and the research addressed the areas that patients felt were most important (36,43).…”

Section: Identify and Meet Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Authors identi ed that stakeholders would have more trust and con dence in the nal outputs because their needs were identi ed, a shared understanding was gained, power and voice was attended to and a sense of ownership was achieved (28, 46). A number of authors deemed their outputs to be more credible, relevant, practical, realistic, and trustworthy, because of their 'co'approach (28, 29,33,34,39,40,42,43,46,48).…”

Section: Trust and Con Dencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example a number of studies included creative activities drawn from design, such as drawing and sketching, personas, journey maps and prototyping (27,28,30,31,34,35,(38)(39)(40)(41)(48)(49)(50). Some used the amalgamation of interview and focus group data to inform their 'co'approach process (42,44,46). Others were coproduction or co-design of a whole research project (29,(44)(45)(46).…”

Section: Activities Used In 'Co'approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Use of Co-production, Co-design and Co-creation to Mobilise Knowledge in the Management of Health Conditions: A Systematic Review

Grindell

Coates

Croot

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Knowledge mobilisation is a term used in healthcare research to describe the process of generating, sharing and using evidence. ‘Co’approaches, such as co-production, co-design and co-creation, have been proposed as a way of overcoming the knowledge to practice gap. There is a need to understand why researchers choose to adopt these approaches, how they achieve knowledge mobilisation in the management of health conditions, and the extent to which knowledge mobilisation is accomplished. Methods Studies that explicitly used the terms co-production, co-design or co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions were included. Web of Science, EMBASE via OvidSP, MEDLINE via OvidSP and CINHAL via EBSCO databases were searched up to April 2021. Quality assessment was carried out using the Joanna Briggs Institute qualitative quality assessment checklist. Pluye and Hong’s seven steps for mixed studies reviews were followed. Data were synthesised using thematic synthesis. Results 24 international studies were included. These were qualitative studies, case studies and study protocols. Key aspects of ‘co’approaches were bringing people together as active and equal partners, valuing all types of knowledge, using creative approaches to understand and solve problems, and using iterative prototyping techniques. Authors articulated mechanisms of action that included developing a shared understanding, identifying and meeting needs, giving everyone a voice and sense of ownership, and creating trust and confidence. They believed these mechanisms could produce interventions that were relevant and acceptable to stakeholders, more useable and more likely to be implemented in healthcare. Varied activities were used to promote these mechanisms such as interviews and creative workshops. There appeared to be a lack of robust evaluation of the interventions produced so little evidence in this review that ‘co’approaches improved the management of health conditions. Conclusion Those using ‘co’approaches believed that they could achieve knowledge mobilisation through a number of mechanisms, but there was no evidence that these led to improved health. The framework of key aspects and mechanisms of ‘co’approaches developed here may help researchers to meet the principles of these approaches. There is a need for robust evaluation to identify whether ‘co’approaches produce improved health outcomes. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020187463

show abstract