MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411328158 · doi:10.1017/s146342362510011x

Co-design of interventions and services with structurally marginalized populations in the context of maternal and early childhood primary care: a rapid scoping review

2025· article· en· W4411328158 on OpenAlexaff
Lucie Vicat-Blanc, Lisa Merry, Marie-Christine Harguindéguy-Lincourt, Yujia Tang, Andraea Van Hulst

Bibliographic record

VenuePrimary Health Care Research & Development · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsCollège de MaisonneuveMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionCINAHLContext (archaeology)NursingIntervention (counseling)MedicineeHealthPopulationHealth carePsychologyFamily medicineEnvironmental healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To synthesize evidence on approaches used in the co-design of maternal and early childhood primary care interventions with structurally marginalized populations. BACKGROUND: Involving end-users when developing health interventions can enhance outcomes. There is limited knowledge on how to effectively engage structurally marginalized populations (i.e., groups that are affected by structural inequities resulting in a disproportionate burden of social exclusion and poor health) when co-designing maternal child primary care interventions. METHODS: A rapid scoping review was conducted by searching EMBASE and CINAHL for studies indexed between January 2010 and December 2024. Peer-reviewed studies describing co-designed health interventions or services tailored to structurally marginalized populations during prenatal, postpartum, or early childhood periods were included if they reported on one or multiple steps of a co-design process in community-based primary care practices in high-income countries. FINDINGS: Of the 5970 records that were screened, nine studies met the inclusion criteria. The co-designed interventions included three eHealth tools, a health- and social-care hub, a mental health service, a health literacy program, an antenatal care uptake intervention, an inventory of parenting support strategies, and a fetal alcohol spectrum disorder prevention campaign. Women, mothers, fathers, and health- and social-service providers contributed to the co-design process by participating in workshops, focus groups, individual interviews, or surveys. They provided feedback on intervention prototypes, existing resources, and new intervention designs or practice models. Ethical and practical considerations related to the population and context (e.g., marginalization) were not consistently addressed. CONCLUSION: This synthesis on intervention co-design approaches with structurally marginalized populations can provide guidance for primary care organizations that are considering maternal child health intervention co-design with this clientele. Future work should include a critical reflection on the ethical and practical considerations for co-design with structurally marginalized populations in the context of maternal and early child care.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.362
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrimary Health Care Research & DevelopmentSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207