Exploring co-design: a systematic review of concepts, processes, models, and frameworks used in public health research
Carmen Vargas, Christina Zorbas, Giuliana Raffaella Longworth, Anna Ugalde, Cindy Needham, Athira Sunil, Carolina Venegas Hargous, Rebecca Bennett, Tari Forrester‐Bowling, Ana Paula C. Richter, Steven Allender
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Co-design has emerged as a preferred collaborative approach among public health practitioners and researchers to increase the potential for effective design, implementation, and dissemination of innovations in practice. However, there is a lack of consistency in its application and reporting, which limits co-design theory building and best practice. This systematic review aimed to examine the peer-reviewed literature reporting on the use of co-design as a process in public health, synthesizing co-design definitions, processes, models or frameworks, and participant involvement. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic review was conducted. MEDLINE Complete, Global Health, and CINAHL databases were searched in April 2024. RESULTS: Fifty-five articles on co-design in public health published between 2016 and 2024 were included, noting a publication surge in 2023. Most studies were from Oceania, especially Australia. While 44% lacked a co-design definition, 56% highlighted its collaborative, inclusive nature. Over half (64%) used specific frameworks with a 4-5 stage process. Participant roles varied from informants to co-designers, with many studies not developing prototypes for testing. CONCLUSIONS: A more transparent and systematic application of co-design principles, guided by clearer frameworks and reporting standards, could improve the consistency and effectiveness of co-design in public health.