Use of co‐design methodology in the development of cardiovascular disease secondary prevention interventions: A scoping review

Abstract

Introduction There is growing evidence to support the use of co‐design in developing interventions across many disciplines. This scoping review aims to examine how co‐design methodology has been used in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) secondary prevention interventions within health and community settings. Methods We searched four academic databases for studies that used the co‐design approach to develop their intervention. Studies were included if consumers (adults with CVD) and key stakeholders (e.g. clinicians, service providers) were involved in the co‐design process. The review focused on methodology rather than traditional study outcomes; therefore, co‐design processes and activities were extracted and evaluated against a selected co‐design framework. Results Twenty‐two studies were included in this review. Studies were implemented across various settings with consumers and stakeholder groups most frequently consisting of patients and healthcare professionals, respectively. Most studies specifically stated that they used a ‘co‐design’ approach ( n = 10); others used terms such as participatory action research ( n = 3), user‐centred design ( n = 3) and community‐based participatory research ( n = 2). Although there was variability in terminology, co‐design processes, and participants, all studies adhered to the key principles of consumer engagement. Predominant co‐design activities included semistructured interviews, focus groups, co‐design/development workshops and advisory group meetings. Intervention effectiveness was assessed in eight studies showing mixed results. Conclusions This review provides an overview of how the co‐design approach has previously been used in the development of CVD secondary prevention interventions. These findings provide methodological considerations that can guide researchers and healthcare services when implementing co‐design to develop feasible and acceptable interventions that can improve outcomes for CVD populations. Patient or Public Contribution No patients, service users, caregivers, people with lived experience or members of the public were involved in this scoping review. This review article was written by academics who have undertaken a significant amount of co‐design work with consumers and stakeholders.

Codesigning implementation strategies to improve evidence‐based stroke rehabilitation: A feasibility study

“…The partnerships formed between health professional workgroup members and people with lived experience of stroke who attended the codesign meetings were valued by both cohorts. The careful selection of people who were invited to become workgroup members likely contributed to effective collaboration, because partnerships are enhanced when stakeholders have skills in creativity, communication and teamwork 34,35 . Implementation of evidence‐based practices can be supported when the people recommending the change are deemed to be reputable, credible and trustworthy, 36,37 and the esteem with which the health professionals held the lived experience workgroup members was evident during the project and in the post‐intervention interviews.…”

“…The careful selection of people who were invited to become workgroup members likely contributed to effective collaboration, because partnerships are enhanced when stakeholders have skills in creativity, communication and teamwork. 34,35 Implementation of evidence-based practices can be supported when the people recommending the change are deemed to be reputable, credible and trustworthy, 36,37 and the esteem with which the health professionals held the lived experience workgroup members was evident during the project and in the postintervention interviews. Lived experience workgroup members spoke openly about the shared power between health professionals and people with lived experience of stroke.…”

Integrating post-fracture care into the primary care setting (interFRACT): Protocol for a mixed-methods study to co-design a care program to improve rates of osteoporosis and fracture treatment

“…30 Involving consumers in this way is thought to increase acceptance, uptake, long-term adherence and satisfaction with the intervention, as well as improving the health outcomes of end-users. 34 35 Patient and public involvement will be integrated throughout all stages of this research. The study will be guided by a Stakeholder Advisory Committee including consumers and stakeholders that will meet four times over the duration of the study.…”

“…Co-design is a relatively new concept within healthcare in which targeted end-users and relevant stakeholders form a partnership with researchers and work together on all aspects of intervention development, from understanding the needs and experiences of end-users through to content development and pilot testing 30. Involving consumers in this way is thought to increase acceptance, uptake, long-term adherence and satisfaction with the intervention, as well as improving the health outcomes of end-users 34 35. Patient and public involvement will be integrated throughout all stages of this research.…”

Co-designing adult weight management services: a qualitative study exploring barriers, facilitators, and considerations for future commissioning

“…Several reviews have explored the use of co-design within health services, focusing on acute health care settings [ 16 ], chronic disease prevention [ 10 ], public health [ 17 ], cardiovascular disease [ 18 ] and immigrant health [ 19 ]. None of these co-design reviews (and few of the studies included within these reviews) focused specifically on adult obesity or weight management services, reflecting a gap in the literature.…”