Abstract

Co-creation of new knowledge has the potential to speed up the discovery and application of new knowledge into practice. However, the progress of co-creation is hindered by a lack of definitional clarity and inconsistent use of terminology. The aim of this paper is to propose a new standardised definition of co-creation of new knowledge for health interventions based on the existing co-creation literature. The authors completed a systematic search of electronic databases and Google Scholar using 10 of the most frequently used co-creation-related keywords to identify relevant studies. Qualitative content analysis was performed, and two reviewers independently tested the categorisation of papers. Of the 6571 papers retrieved, 42 papers met the inclusion criteria. Examination of the current literature on co-creation demonstrated how the variability of co-creation-related terms can be reduced to four collaborative processes: co-ideation, co-design, co-implementation and co-evaluation. Based on these four processes, a new definition of co-creation of new knowledge for health interventions is proposed. The analysis revealed the need to address the conceptual ambiguity of the definition of “co-creation of new knowledge”. The proposed new definition may help to resolve the current definitional issues relating to co-creation, allowing researchers and policymakers to progress the development of co-creation of new knowledge in research and practice.

Highlights

  • Researchers, practitioners and policy makers have a strong interest in increasing the speed and efficiency with which research findings contribute to improved public health outcomes

  • Given the current variability and the potential to improve these existing definitions, this paper proposes a standardised definition for the co-creation of new knowledge based on the inductive analysis of the existing literature and input from co-researchers as community practitioners

  • Co-creation of new knowledge is presented as an alternative model for translating research, its use in industry is hindered by its conceptual immaturity

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Researchers, practitioners and policy makers have a strong interest in increasing the speed and efficiency with which research findings contribute to improved public health outcomes. The most frequently cited translational models that facilitate research findings into practice are: RE-AIM. (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance); “T” models Continuum); and KTA (Knowledge to Action) [1]. RE-AIM is an evaluation framework that measures the impact of health interventions on improvements to public health outcomes [1]. The “T” model framework follows a six-stage linear process where research moves from a discovery or “basic” stage. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2229; doi:10.3390/ijerph17072229 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call