Framework, principles and recommendations for utilising participatory methodologies in the co-creation and evaluation of public health interventions

Calum F Leask, Marlene Sandlund, Dawn A Skelton, Teatske M Altenburg, Greet Cardon, Mai J M Chinapaw, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Maite Verloigne, Sebastien F M Chastin, GrandStand, Safe Step and Teenage Girls on the Move Research Groups, Calum F Leask, Marlene Sandlund, Dawn A Skelton, Teatske M Altenburg, Greet Cardon, Mai J M Chinapaw, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Maite Verloigne, Sebastien F M Chastin, GrandStand, Safe Step and Teenage Girls on the Move Research Groups

Abstract

Plain english summary: Background: Society has to cope with a large burden of health issues. There is need to find solutions to prevent diseases and help individuals live healthier lifestyles. Individual needs and circumstances vary greatly and one size fit all solutions do not tend to work well. More tailored solutions centred on individuals' needs and circumstances can be developed in collaboration with these individuals. This process, known as co-creation, has shown promise but it requires guiding principles to improve its effectiveness. The aim of this study was to identify a key set of principles and recommendations for co-creating public health interventions.Methods: These principles were collaboratively developed through analysing a set of case studies targeting different health behaviours (such as reducing sitting and improving strength and balance) in different groups of people (such as adolescent schoolgirls and older adults living in the community).Results: The key principles of co-creation are presented in four stages: Planning (what is the purpose of the co-creation; and who should be involved?); Conducting (what activities can be used during co-creation; and how to ensure buy-in and commitment?); Evaluating (how do we know the process and the outcome are valid and effective?) and Reporting (how to report the findings?). Three models are proposed to show how co-created solutions can be scaled up to a population level.Conclusions: These recommendations aim to help the co-creation of public health interventions by providing a framework and governance to guide the process.

Abstract: Background: Due to the chronic disease burden on society, there is a need for preventive public health interventions to stimulate society towards a healthier lifestyle. To deal with the complex variability between individual lifestyles and settings, collaborating with end-users to develop interventions tailored to their unique circumstances has been suggested as a potential way to improve effectiveness and adherence. Co-creation of public health interventions using participatory methodologies has shown promise but lacks a framework to make this process systematic. The aim of this paper was to identify and set key principles and recommendations for systematically applying participatory methodologies to co-create and evaluate public health interventions. Methods: These principles and recommendations were derived using an iterative reflection process, combining key learning from published literature in addition to critical reflection on three case studies conducted by research groups in three European institutions, all of whom have expertise in co-creating public health interventions using different participatory methodologies. Results: Key principles and recommendations for using participatory methodologies in public health intervention co-creation are presented for the stages of: Planning (framing the aim of the study and identifying the appropriate sampling strategy); Conducting (defining the procedure, in addition to manifesting ownership); Evaluating (the process and the effectiveness) and Reporting (providing guidelines to report the findings). Three scaling models are proposed to demonstrate how to scale locally developed interventions to a population level. Conclusions: These recommendations aim to facilitate public health intervention co-creation and evaluation utilising participatory methodologies by ensuring the process is systematic and reproducible.

Keywords: Co-creation; Participation; Public health; Reflective learning; Tailored intervention.

Conflict of interest statement

Not applicable.Not applicable.The authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Iterative derivation of co-creation principles. SB = sedentary behaviour; OAs = older adults
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Iterative co-creation process
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Logic model of Case 1 co-created intervention mechanism. QOL = quality of life; SB = sedentary behaviour
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Models for scaling locally co-created public health interventions using participatory methodologies: a distributed model; b generalisable model; c cascade model

References

    1. Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, Guthold R, Haskell W, Ekelund U. Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet. 2012;380:247–257. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60646-1.
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence . Behaviour change at population, community and individual levels. London: NICE; 2007.
    1. Finegood D, Karanfil Ö, Matteson C. Getting from analysis to Action: framing obesity research, policy and practice with a solution-oriented complex systems lens. Healthc Pap. 2008;9:36–41. doi: 10.12927/hcpap.2008.20184.
    1. World Health Organisation . Global recommendations on physical activity for health. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2010.
    1. FORESIGHT . Tackling obesities: future choices - project report. Foresight. London: Government Office for Science; 2007.
    1. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2008.
    1. Finegood D, Johnston L, Steinberg M, Matteson CL, Deck PB. In: Complexity, systems thinking, and health behavior change. Kahan S, Gielen AC, Fagan PJ, Green LW, editors. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011. pp. 208–236.
    1. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM. Planning Problems are Wicked Problems. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1984. pp. 134–144.
    1. Rimer BK, Kreuter MW. Advancing tailored health communication: a persuasion and message effects perspective. J Commun. 2006;56:S184–S201. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00289.x.
    1. Vandenbroeck P, Goossens J, Clemens M. Foresight tackling obesities: future choices — obesity system atlas. 2007.
    1. Zwass V. Co-creation: toward a taxonomy and an integrated research perspective. Int J Electron Commer. 2010;15:11–48. doi: 10.2753/JEC1086-4415150101.
    1. Galvagno M, Dalli D. Theory of value co-creation: a systematic literature review. Manag Serv Qual An Int J. 2014;24:643–683. doi: 10.1108/MSQ-09-2013-0187.
    1. National Cancer Insitute. Greater Than the Sum. Systems thinking in tobacco control: Natl. Rockville: Institutes Heal; 2007. p. 1–67.
    1. Health Canada. The Federal Tobacco Control Strategy (FTCS): a framework for Action. Ottawa: Health canada; 2013.
    1. Sanders EB-N, Stappers PJ. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign. 2008;4:5–18. doi: 10.1080/15710880701875068.
    1. Terblanche NS. Some theoretical perspectives of co-creation and co-production of value by customers. Acta Commer. 2014;14:1–9. doi: 10.4102/ac.v14i2.237.
    1. Prahalad CK, Ramaswamy V. The co-creation connection. Strateg Bus. 2002;27:50–61.
    1. Prahalad CK, Ramaswamy V. Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation. J Interact Mark. 2004;18:5–14. doi: 10.1002/dir.20015.
    1. Fischer G, Giaccardi E. Meta-design: a framework for the future of end-user development. End User Dev. 2006;9:427–457. doi: 10.1007/1-4020-5386-X_19.
    1. Green LW, O’Neill M, Westphal M, Morisky D. The challenges of participatory Action research for health promotion. Promot Educ. 1996;3:3–4. doi: 10.1177/102538239600300401.
    1. Medical Research Council. Developing and evaluating complex interventions : new guidance. BMJ. 2008;337.
    1. Durand M-A, Carpenter L, Dolan H, Bravo P, Mann M, Bunn F, et al. Do interventions designed to support shared decision-making reduce health inequalities? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e94670. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094670.
    1. Martin LR, Williams SL, Haskard KB, Dimatteo MR. The challenge of patient adherence. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2005;1:189–199.
    1. Crawford MJ, Rutter D, Manley C, Weaver T, Bhui K, Fulop N, et al. Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care. BMJ. 2002;325:1263. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7375.1263.
    1. Parkin P. In: Action Research as a Strategy for Implementing Change. Parkin P, editor. London: Sage Publications; 2009. pp. 14–33.
    1. Ghaye T, Melander-Wilkman A, Kisare M, Chambers P, Bergmark U, Kostenius C, et al. Participatory and appreciative action and reflection (PAAR) – democratizing reflective practices. Reflective Pract. 2008;9:361–397. doi: 10.1080/14623940802475827.
    1. International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research (ICPHR) Position paper 1: What is Participatory Health Research? Berlin: International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research; 2013.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Jackson C, Shaw S, Janamian T. Achieving research impact through co-creation in community-based health services: literature review and case study. Milbank Q. 2016;94:392–429. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12197.
    1. Caro HE, Altenburg TM, Dedding C, Chinapaw MJ. Dutch primary schoolchildren’s perspectives of activity-friendly school playgrounds: a participatory study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13:1–20. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13060526.
    1. Potvin L, Cargo M, McComber AM, Delormier T, Macaulay A. Implementing participatory intervention and research in communities. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:1295–1305. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00129-6.
    1. Leask CF, Skelton DA, Sandlund M, Chastin SFM. Co-Creating a Tailored Intervention to Reduce Sedentary Behaviour in Older Adults. J Aging Phys Act. 2016;24:S92. doi: 10.1123/japa.2014-0202.
    1. Lindgren H, Pohl P, Melander-Wikman A, Bergvall-Kåreborn B, Lundin-Olsson L. Towards a mobile exercise application to prevent falls: a participatory design process. Int J Child Heal Hum Dev. 2016;9:389–398.
    1. Masters J. In: Hughes I, editor. The history of action research. Sydney: The University of Sydney, on-line; 1995.
    1. Baum F, MacDougall C, Smith D. Participatory action research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:854–857. doi: 10.1136/jech.2004.028662.
    1. Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T, Keitz S, Fontelo P. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007;7:16. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-7-16.
    1. Oxford University Press . Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
    1. Kazadi K, Lievens A, Mahr D. Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process: identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders. J Bus Res. 2015;69:525–540. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.009.
    1. Kiaer AN. Observations et expériences concernant des dénombrements représentatives. Bull Int Stat Inst. 1895;9:176–183.
    1. Bethlehem J. The rise of survey sampling. Rotterdam: Stat. Netherlands; 2009.
    1. Suri H. Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qual Res J. 2011;11:63–75. doi: 10.3316/QRJ1102063.
    1. Daoust C. Conducting Action Research [Internet]. Saint Mary's College of C.A, 2011 [cited 2016 Nov 29]. Available from: .
    1. Marshall MN. Sampling for qualitative research. Fam Pract. 1996;13:522–525. doi: 10.1093/fampra/13.6.522.
    1. Palys T. Purposive sampling. Los Angeles: Sage; 2008. pp. 697–698.
    1. Preskill H, One R. A Practical Guide for Engaging Stakeholders in Developing Evaluation Questions [Internet]. Robert Wood Johnson Found. 2009 [cited 2018 Aug 19]. p. 48. Available from:
    1. Tuckett A. Qualitative research sampling: the very real complexities. Nurse Res. 2004;12:1–14. doi: 10.7748/nr2004.07.12.1.47.c5930.
    1. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Collins KMT. A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. Qual Rep. 2007;12:281–316.
    1. Baas N, de Jong MDT, Drossaert CHC. Children’s perspectives on cyberbullying: insights based on participatory research. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2013;16:248–253. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0079.
    1. Harwood T, Garry T. Co-creation and ambiguous ownership within virtual communities: the case of the machinima community. J Consum Behav. 2013;12:253–266. doi: 10.1002/cb.1405.
    1. Cook T. Where participatory approaches meet pragmatism in funded (health) research: the challenge of finding meaningful spaces. Qual Soc Res. 2012;13:1–14. doi: 10.22284/qr.2012.13.1.1.
    1. Mael F, Ashforth BE. Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. J Organ Behav. 1992;13:103–123. doi: 10.1002/job.4030130202.
    1. Pierce JL, Kostova T, Dirks KT. Toward a theory of Pschological ownership in organizations. Acad Manag Rev. 2001;26:298–310. doi: 10.5465/amr.2001.4378028.
    1. Pater M. Co-Creation’s 5 guiding principles. Amsterdam: Fronteer Strategy; 2009.
    1. Mehrpouya H, Maxwell D, Zamora D. Reflections on co-creation: An open source approach to co-creation. Participations. 2013;10:172–182.
    1. Weil S. The need for roots: prelude to a declaration of duties towards mankind. London: Routledge; 1952.
    1. Blair T, Minkler M. Participatory action research with older adults: key principles in practice. Gerontologist. 2009;49:651–662. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnp049.
    1. Rochberg-Halton E. Cultural signs and urban adaptation: the meaning of cherished household possessions. Chicago: University of Chicago; 1980.
    1. Butterly Works . Co-creation for a better world: white paper number 1 on social campaigns and learning. Amsterdam: Butterfly Works; 2014.
    1. O’Hern M, Rindfleisch A. Customer co-creation: a typology and research agenda. Madison: University of Wisconsin; 2008. Report No.: 4
    1. Pearson ES. Goal setting as a health behavior change strategy in overweight and obese adults: a systematic literature review examining intervention components. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;87:32–42. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.07.018.
    1. Strecher VJ, Seijts GH, Kok GJ, Latham GP, Glasgow R, DeVellis B, et al. Goal setting as a strategy for health behavior change. Heal Educ Behav. 1995;22:190–200.
    1. Furby L. Possession in humans: an exploratory study of its meaning and motivation. Soc Behav Pers. 1978;6:49–65. doi: 10.2224/sbp.1978.6.1.49.
    1. Baranick E, Baird A, Vinze A. An economic framework for transitioning to capacity building. Glob Public Health. 2015;10:15–27. doi: 10.1080/17441692.2014.964745.
    1. Allen S, Bailetti T, Tanev S. Components of Co-creation [Internet]. Open Source Bus. Resour. 2009 [cited 2016 Nov 29]. Available from:
    1. Anderson WL, Crocca WT. Engineering practice and codevelopment of product prototypes. Assoc Comput Mach Commun ACM. 1993;36:49.
    1. Dick H, Eden H, Fischer G. From consumers to owners: using meta-design environments to motivate changes in energy consumption. Lect Notes Comput Sci. 2011;6654:319–324. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21530-8_33.
    1. Witell L, Kristensson P, Gustafsson A, Löfgren M. Idea generation: customer co-creation versus traditional market research techniques. J Serv Manag. 2011;22:140–159. doi: 10.1108/09564231111124190.
    1. Ogawa S, Piller FT. Reducing the risks of new product development. MIT Sloan Manag Rev. 2006;47:65–71.
    1. Plattner H, Meinel C, Leifer L. Design thinking research. Studying co-creation in practice. London: Springer; 2011.
    1. Roser T, Samson A, Cruz-Valdivieso E, Humphreys P. Co-creation: new pathways to value an overview. Promise Corp. 2009;22:1-22.
    1. Sandlund M, Lindgren H, Pohl P. Towards a mobile exercise application to prevent falls : a participatory design process. Gothenburg, Sweden: 10th Intl Conf. Disabil. Virtual Real. Assoc. Technol; 2014. pp. 147–154.
    1. Harmancioglu N, McNally RC, Calantone RJ, Durmusoglu SS. Your new product development (NPD) is only as good as your process: an exploratory analysis of new NPD process design and implementation. R D Manag. 2007;37:399–424. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2007.00486.x.
    1. Hurteau M, Houle S, Mongiat S. How legitimate and justified are judgments in program evaluation? Evaluation. 2009;15:307–319. doi: 10.1177/1356389009105883.
    1. Parkin P. Action research as a strategy for implementing change. 2002.
    1. Carlson JA. Avoiding traps in member checking. Qual Rep. 2010;15:1102–1113.
    1. Reason P, Rowan J. Human inquiry: a sourcebook of new paradigm research. Michigan: Wiley; 1981.
    1. Schön DA. The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books; 1983.
    1. Rogers C. Defining reflection:another look at John Dewey and Reflective thinking. Teach Coll Rec. 2002;104:842–866. doi: 10.1111/1467-9620.00181.
    1. Silverman D. Doing qualitative research. London: Sage; 2000.
    1. Macaulay AC, Paradis G, Potvin L, Cross EJ, Saad-Haddad C, McComber A, et al. The Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project: intervention, evaluation, and baseline results of a diabetes primary prevention program with a native community in Canada. Prev Med (Baltim) 1997;26:779–790. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1997.0241.
    1. McMillan B, Florin P, Stevenson J, Kerman B, Mitchell R. Empowerment praxis in community coalitions. Am J Community Psychol. 1995;23:699–727. doi: 10.1007/BF02506988.
    1. Cooksy LJ, Gill P, Kelly PA. The program logic model as an integrative framework for a multimethod evaluation. Eval Program Plann. 2001;24:119–128. doi: 10.1016/S0149-7189(01)00003-9.
    1. Macaulay AC, Jagosh J, Seller R, Henderson J, Cargo M, Greenhalgh T, et al. Assessing the benefits of participatory research: a rationale for a realist review. Glob Health Promot. 2011;18:45–48. doi: 10.1177/1757975910383936.
    1. Findley S, Irigoyen M, Sanchez M, Guzman L, Mejia M, Sajous M, et al. Community empowerment to reduce childhood immunization disparities in new York City. Ethn Dis. 2004;14:134–141.
    1. Carroll C, Patterson M, Wood S, Booth A, Rick J, Balain S. A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implement Sci. 2007;2:1–9. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-2-40.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
    1. Moher D, Schulz K, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res. 2001;1:1191-4.
    1. Jagosh J, Macaulay A, Pluye P, Salsberg J, Bush P, Henderson J, et al. Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for Health Research and practice. Milbank Q. 2012;90:311–346. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00665.x.
    1. Hjern B, Hull C. Implementation Research as Empirical Constitutionalism. Eur J Polit Res. 1982;10:lo5–li6. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.1982.tb00011.x.
    1. Osborn AF. Applied imagination: principles and procedures of creative problem solving. Third Revi. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; 1963.
    1. Robinson DT. Role playing. SAGE Encycl. Soc Sci Res Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2004.
    1. Uzor S, Baillie L, Skelton D. Senior designers: empowering seniors to design enjoyable falls rehabilitation tools. ACM SIGCHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (CHI 2012). Austin: ACM Press; 2012.
    1. Bhalla G. Collaboration and co-creation: new platforms for marketing and innovation. New York: Springer; 2011.
    1. Leask CF, Harvey JA, Skelton DA, Chastin SFM. Exploring the context of sedentary behaviour in older adults (what, where, why, when and with whom). Eur Rev Ageing Phys Act. 2015;12:1-8.
    1. Leask CF, Sandlund M, Skelton DA, Tulle E, Chastin SFM. Modifying older adults’ daily sedentary behaviour using an asset-based solution: views from older adults. AIMS Public Heal. 2016;3:542–554. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2016.3.542.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅