Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jul 7;22(1):877.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08079-y.

The use of co-production, co-design and co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions: a systematic review

Affiliations

The use of co-production, co-design and co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions: a systematic review

Cheryl Grindell et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

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: Twenty four 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.

Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42020187463 .

Keywords: Co-creation; Co-design; Co-production; Health; Knowledge mobilisation; ‘Co’approaches.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram [19]
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Overview of themes: key aspects, mechanisms of action, activities used and outcomes of ‘co’approaches for knowledge mobilisation in health conditions

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Melville-Richards L, Rycroft-Malone J, Burton C, Wilkinson J. Making authentic: exploring boundary objects and bricolage in knowledge mobilisation through National Health Service-university partnerships. Evidence and Policy. 2019;2:1–23.
    1. Powell A, Davies H, Nutley S. Missing in action? The role of the knowledge mobilisation literature in developing knowledge mobilisation practices. Evidence and Policy. 2017;13(2):201–223. doi: 10.1332/174426416X14534671325644. - DOI
    1. Ward V. Why, whose, what and how? A framework for knowledge mobilisers. Evidence and Policy. 2017;13(3):477–497. doi: 10.1332/174426416X14634763278725. - DOI
    1. Ferlie E, Crilly T, Jashapara A, Peckham A. Knowledge mobilisation in healthcare: A critical review of health sector and generic management literature. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74:1297–1304. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.042. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Powell A, Davies HTO, Nutley SM. Facing the challenges of research-informed knowledge mobilization: ‘Practising what we preach’? Public Adm. 2018;96(1):36–52. doi: 10.1111/padm.12365. - DOI

Publication types