Methods Used in Co-Creation Within the Health CASCADE Co-Creation Database and Gray Literature: Systematic Methods Overview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Co-creation is increasingly recognized for its potential to generate innovative solutions, particularly in addressing complex and wicked problems in public health. Despite this growing recognition, there are no standards or recommendations for method use in co-creation, leading to confusion and inconsistency. While some studies have examined specific methods, a comprehensive overview is lacking, limiting the collective understanding and ability to make informed decisions about the most appropriate methods for different contexts and research objectives. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically compile and analyze methods used in co-creation to enhance transparency and deepen understanding of how co-creation is practiced. METHODS: To enhance transparency and deepen understanding of how co-creation is practiced, this study systematically inventoried and analyzed methods used in co-creation. We conducted a systematic methods overview, applying 2 parallel processes: one within the peer-reviewed Health CASCADE Co-Creation Database and another within gray literature. An artificial intelligence-assisted recursive search strategy, coupled with a 2-step screening process, ensured that we captured relevant methods. We then extracted method names and conducted textual, comparative, and bibliometric analyses to assess the content, relationship between methods, fields of research, and the methodological underpinnings of the included sources. RESULTS: We examined a total of 2627 academic papers and gray literature sources, with the literature primarily drawn from health sciences, medical research, and health services research. The dominant methodologies identified were co-creation, co-design, coproduction, participatory research methodologies, and public and patient involvement. From these sources, we extracted and analyzed 956 co-creation methods, noting that only 10% (n=97) of the methods overlap between academic and gray literature. Notably, 91.3% (230/252) of the methods in academic literature co-occurred, often involving combinations of multiple qualitative methods. The most frequently used methods in academic literature included surveys, focus groups, photo voice, and group discussion, whereas gray literature highlighted methods such as world café, focus groups, role-playing, and persona. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents the first systematic overview of co-creation methods, providing a clear understanding of the diverse methods currently in use. Our findings reveal a significant methodological gap between researchers and practitioners, offering insights into the relative prevalence and combinations of methods. By shedding light on these methods, this study helps bridge the gap and supports researchers in making informed decisions about which methods to apply in their work. Additionally, it offers a foundation for further investigation into method use in co-creation. This systematic investigation is a valuable resource for anyone engaging in co-creation or similar participatory methodologies, helping to navigate the diverse landscape of methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.249 | 0.384 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.135 | 0.081 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".