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
. 2025 Aug 30;25(1):2979.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-24095-z.

Co-production as an approach for developing youth advocacy videos on countering unhealthy food marketing and e-cigarette advertising

Marissa J Smith  1 , Caroline Vaczy  2 , Shona Hilton  3
Affiliations

Co-production as an approach for developing youth advocacy videos on countering unhealthy food marketing and e-cigarette advertising

Marissa J Smith et al. BMC Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: Community-based participatory research has been a cornerstone of health promotion and public health for over two decades, providing a foundation for co-production approaches that actively involve communities in the design and implementation of interventions. This paper examines the application of co-production as a research approach for developing youth advocacy videos on countering unhealthy food marketing and e-cigarette advertising.

Methodology: The research to co-produce videos was conducted with 33 young people aged between 12 and 16 living in the Central Belt of Scotland. The research comprised four stages: workshops, photovoice, focus groups and video development.

Results: The findings presented are derived from the co-production process involved in creating two youth advocacy videos on unhealthy food marketing and e-cigarette advertising. Through this approach, young co-researchers were provided with opportunities to both learn about and conduct research, fostering their active involvement at every stage of the project. Co-production with young co-researchers enhanced the relevance and impact of advocacy videos, empowering participants through authentic collaboration. While challenges like power dynamics, engagement, and ethical considerations arose, fostering trust, inclusivity, and skill-building ensured success. The project highlighted the importance of youth-led approaches in creating relatable content and developing leadership and practical skills for broader applications. The advocacy videos produced in this study emphasise the critical importance of engaging young co-researchers in the research process. They highlight the necessity of safeguarding young people from harmful advertising practices while empowering them to take an active role in shaping health interventions.

Conclusion: This research underscores the value of co-production in health promotion, demonstrating its effectiveness in tailoring interventions to the unique perspectives and needs of the target audience. Notably, it also addresses a significant gap in the existing evidence base, which has historically focused on individual interventions rather than systemic or community-level approaches.

Keywords: Co-production; Health promotion; Participatory research; Young people; Youth advocacy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Ethical approval for this study was granted by the College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee at the University of Glasgow (reference 200220088). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their involvement in the study. Consent for publication: All participants provided written informed consent for the publication of findings derived from this study. Participants were informed about how their data, including any anonymised quotes or contributions, would be presented in publications. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

References

    1. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):156–65. - PubMed
    1. Popay J, Williams G. Public health research and lay knowledge. Soc Sci Med. 1996;42(5):759–68. - PubMed
    1. Hughes R. Patient safety and quality: an evidence-based handbook for nurses. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008. - PubMed
    1. Arumugam A, Phillips LR, Moore A, Kumaran SD, Sampath KK, Migliorini F, et al. Patient and public involvement in research: a review of practical resources for young investigators. BMC Rheumatol. 2023;7(1):2. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Filipe A, Renedo A, Marston C. The co-production of what? Knowledge, values, and social relations in health care. PLoS Biol. 2017;15(5):e2001403. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources