共同创造中的过程评估导航:健康 CASCADE 对所用框架和评估内容的范围审查。

IF 7.1 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH BMJ Global Health Pub Date : 2024-07-04 DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014483
Giuliana Raffaella Longworth, Janneke de Boer, Kunshan Goh, Danielle Marie Agnello, Lauren McCaffrey, Jorge Raul Zapata Restrepo, Qingfan An, Sebastien Chastin, Aaron Davis, Teatske Altenburg, Maite Verloigne, Maria Giné-Garriga
{"title":"共同创造中的过程评估导航:健康 CASCADE 对所用框架和评估内容的范围审查。","authors":"Giuliana Raffaella Longworth, Janneke de Boer, Kunshan Goh, Danielle Marie Agnello, Lauren McCaffrey, Jorge Raul Zapata Restrepo, Qingfan An, Sebastien Chastin, Aaron Davis, Teatske Altenburg, Maite Verloigne, Maria Giné-Garriga","doi":"10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014483","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Co-creation is seen as a way to ensure all relevant needs and perspectives are included and to increase its potential for beneficial effects and uptake process evaluation is crucial. However, existing process evaluation frameworks have been built on practices characterised by top-down developed and implemented interventions and may be limited in capturing essential elements of co-creation. This study aims to provide a review of studies planning and/or conducting a process evaluation of public health interventions adopting a co-creation approach and aims to derive assessed process evaluation components, used frameworks and insights into formative and/or participatory evaluation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched for studies on Scopus and the Health CASCADE Co-Creation Database. Co-authors performed a concept-mapping exercise to create a set of overarching dimensions for clustering the identified process evaluation components.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>54 studies were included. Conceptualisation of process evaluation included in studies concerned intervention implementation, outcome evaluation, mechanisms of impact, context and the co-creation process. 22 studies (40%) referenced ten existing process evaluation or evaluation frameworks and most referenced were the frameworks developed by Moore <i>et al</i> (14%), Saunders <i>et al</i> (5%), Steckler and Linnan (5%) and Nielsen and Randall (5%).38 process evaluation components were identified, with a focus on participation (48%), context (40%), the experience of co-creators (29%), impact (29%), satisfaction (25%) and fidelity (24%).13 studies (24%) conducted formative evaluation, 37 (68%) conducted summative evaluation and 2 studies (3%) conducted participatory evaluation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The broad spectrum of process evaluation components addressed in co-creation studies, covering both the evaluation of the co-creation process and the intervention implementation, highlights the need for a process evaluation tailored to co-creation studies. This work provides an overview of process evaluation components, clustered in dimensions and reflections which researchers and practitioners can use to plan a process evaluation of a co-creation process and intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":9137,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Global Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11227756/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Navigating process evaluation in co-creation: a Health CASCADE scoping review of used frameworks and assessed components.\",\"authors\":\"Giuliana Raffaella Longworth, Janneke de Boer, Kunshan Goh, Danielle Marie Agnello, Lauren McCaffrey, Jorge Raul Zapata Restrepo, Qingfan An, Sebastien Chastin, Aaron Davis, Teatske Altenburg, Maite Verloigne, Maria Giné-Garriga\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014483\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Co-creation is seen as a way to ensure all relevant needs and perspectives are included and to increase its potential for beneficial effects and uptake process evaluation is crucial. However, existing process evaluation frameworks have been built on practices characterised by top-down developed and implemented interventions and may be limited in capturing essential elements of co-creation. This study aims to provide a review of studies planning and/or conducting a process evaluation of public health interventions adopting a co-creation approach and aims to derive assessed process evaluation components, used frameworks and insights into formative and/or participatory evaluation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched for studies on Scopus and the Health CASCADE Co-Creation Database. Co-authors performed a concept-mapping exercise to create a set of overarching dimensions for clustering the identified process evaluation components.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>54 studies were included. Conceptualisation of process evaluation included in studies concerned intervention implementation, outcome evaluation, mechanisms of impact, context and the co-creation process. 22 studies (40%) referenced ten existing process evaluation or evaluation frameworks and most referenced were the frameworks developed by Moore <i>et al</i> (14%), Saunders <i>et al</i> (5%), Steckler and Linnan (5%) and Nielsen and Randall (5%).38 process evaluation components were identified, with a focus on participation (48%), context (40%), the experience of co-creators (29%), impact (29%), satisfaction (25%) and fidelity (24%).13 studies (24%) conducted formative evaluation, 37 (68%) conducted summative evaluation and 2 studies (3%) conducted participatory evaluation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The broad spectrum of process evaluation components addressed in co-creation studies, covering both the evaluation of the co-creation process and the intervention implementation, highlights the need for a process evaluation tailored to co-creation studies. This work provides an overview of process evaluation components, clustered in dimensions and reflections which researchers and practitioners can use to plan a process evaluation of a co-creation process and intervention.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9137,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Global Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11227756/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Global Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014483\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014483","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:共同创造被认为是确保所有相关需求和观点都被纳入的一种方式,为了提高其产生有益影响和吸收的潜力,过程评估至关重要。然而,现有的过程评估框架是建立在自上而下制定和实施干预措施的实践基础上的,在捕捉共同创造的基本要素方面可能存在局限性。本研究旨在对采用共创方法规划和/或开展公共卫生干预过程评估的研究进行综述,并旨在得出已评估的过程评估要素、已使用的框架以及对形成性和/或参与性评估的见解:我们在 Scopus 和健康 CASCADE 共同创造数据库中搜索了相关研究。方法:我们在 Scopus 和健康 CASCADE 共创数据库中搜索了相关研究,共同作者进行了概念绘图工作,以创建一套总体维度,用于对已确定的过程评估要素进行分组:结果:共纳入 54 项研究。研究中包含的过程评估概念涉及干预措施的实施、结果评估、影响机制、背景和共创过程。22 项研究(40%)引用了 10 个现有的过程评估或评估框架,引用最多的是 Moore 等人(14%)、Saunders 等人(5%)、Steckler 和 Linnan(5%)以及 Nielsen 和 Randall(5%)制定的框架。13 项研究(24%)进行了形成性评价,37 项研究(68%)进行了总结性评价,2 项研究(3%)进行了参与性评价:共同创造研究中涉及的过程评价内容广泛,既包括对共同创造过程的评价,也包括对干预措施实施情况的评价,这凸显了为共同创造研究量身定制过程评价的必要性。这项工作概述了过程评价的各个组成部分,并从多个维度对其进行了归类和思考,研究人员和从业人员可以利用这些内容来规划共同创造过程和干预措施的过程评价。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Navigating process evaluation in co-creation: a Health CASCADE scoping review of used frameworks and assessed components.

Background: Co-creation is seen as a way to ensure all relevant needs and perspectives are included and to increase its potential for beneficial effects and uptake process evaluation is crucial. However, existing process evaluation frameworks have been built on practices characterised by top-down developed and implemented interventions and may be limited in capturing essential elements of co-creation. This study aims to provide a review of studies planning and/or conducting a process evaluation of public health interventions adopting a co-creation approach and aims to derive assessed process evaluation components, used frameworks and insights into formative and/or participatory evaluation.

Methods: We searched for studies on Scopus and the Health CASCADE Co-Creation Database. Co-authors performed a concept-mapping exercise to create a set of overarching dimensions for clustering the identified process evaluation components.

Results: 54 studies were included. Conceptualisation of process evaluation included in studies concerned intervention implementation, outcome evaluation, mechanisms of impact, context and the co-creation process. 22 studies (40%) referenced ten existing process evaluation or evaluation frameworks and most referenced were the frameworks developed by Moore et al (14%), Saunders et al (5%), Steckler and Linnan (5%) and Nielsen and Randall (5%).38 process evaluation components were identified, with a focus on participation (48%), context (40%), the experience of co-creators (29%), impact (29%), satisfaction (25%) and fidelity (24%).13 studies (24%) conducted formative evaluation, 37 (68%) conducted summative evaluation and 2 studies (3%) conducted participatory evaluation.

Conclusion: The broad spectrum of process evaluation components addressed in co-creation studies, covering both the evaluation of the co-creation process and the intervention implementation, highlights the need for a process evaluation tailored to co-creation studies. This work provides an overview of process evaluation components, clustered in dimensions and reflections which researchers and practitioners can use to plan a process evaluation of a co-creation process and intervention.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Global Health
BMJ Global Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
4.90%
发文量
429
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Global Health is an online Open Access journal from BMJ that focuses on publishing high-quality peer-reviewed content pertinent to individuals engaged in global health, including policy makers, funders, researchers, clinicians, and frontline healthcare workers. The journal encompasses all facets of global health, with a special emphasis on submissions addressing underfunded areas such as non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It welcomes research across all study phases and designs, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialized studies. The journal also encourages opinionated discussions on controversial topics.
期刊最新文献
The impact of a multi-faceted intervention on non-prescription dispensing of antibiotics by urban community pharmacies in Indonesia: a mixed methods evaluation. Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH): the evolution of a global health and development sector. Cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and critical analysis of recent evidence. Learning from the Montreal Protocol to improve the global governance of antimicrobial resistance. Leveraging investments, promoting transparency and mobilising communities: a qualitative analysis of news articles about how the Ebola outbreak informed COVID-19 response in five African countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1