Use of co‐design methodology in the development of cardiovascular disease secondary prevention interventions: A scoping review
Abstract Introduction There is growing evidence to support the use of co‐design in developing interventions across many disciplines. This scoping review aims to examine how co‐design methodology has been used in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) secondary prevention interventions withi...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2023-02-01
|
| Series: | Health Expectations |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13633 |
| _version_ | 1797946559539707904 |
|---|---|
| author | Jason Talevski Stefan T. Kulnik Rebecca L. Jessup Roman Falls Natali Cvetanovska Alison Beauchamp |
| author_facet | Jason Talevski Stefan T. Kulnik Rebecca L. Jessup Roman Falls Natali Cvetanovska Alison Beauchamp |
| author_sort | Jason Talevski |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Introduction There is growing evidence to support the use of co‐design in developing interventions across many disciplines. This scoping review aims to examine how co‐design methodology has been used in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) secondary prevention interventions within health and community settings. Methods We searched four academic databases for studies that used the co‐design approach to develop their intervention. Studies were included if consumers (adults with CVD) and key stakeholders (e.g. clinicians, service providers) were involved in the co‐design process. The review focused on methodology rather than traditional study outcomes; therefore, co‐design processes and activities were extracted and evaluated against a selected co‐design framework. Results Twenty‐two studies were included in this review. Studies were implemented across various settings with consumers and stakeholder groups most frequently consisting of patients and healthcare professionals, respectively. Most studies specifically stated that they used a ‘co‐design’ approach (n = 10); others used terms such as participatory action research (n = 3), user‐centred design (n = 3) and community‐based participatory research (n = 2). Although there was variability in terminology, co‐design processes, and participants, all studies adhered to the key principles of consumer engagement. Predominant co‐design activities included semistructured interviews, focus groups, co‐design/development workshops and advisory group meetings. Intervention effectiveness was assessed in eight studies showing mixed results. Conclusions This review provides an overview of how the co‐design approach has previously been used in the development of CVD secondary prevention interventions. These findings provide methodological considerations that can guide researchers and healthcare services when implementing co‐design to develop feasible and acceptable interventions that can improve outcomes for CVD populations. Patient or Public Contribution No patients, service users, caregivers, people with lived experience or members of the public were involved in this scoping review. This review article was written by academics who have undertaken a significant amount of co‐design work with consumers and stakeholders. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-10T21:14:01Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-4438ba37918d4ef39d8e40a70b6cb64e |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1369-6513 1369-7625 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-10T21:14:01Z |
| publishDate | 2023-02-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Health Expectations |
| spelling | doaj.art-4438ba37918d4ef39d8e40a70b6cb64e2023-01-20T13:33:07ZengWileyHealth Expectations1369-65131369-76252023-02-01261162910.1111/hex.13633Use of co‐design methodology in the development of cardiovascular disease secondary prevention interventions: A scoping reviewJason Talevski0Stefan T. Kulnik1Rebecca L. Jessup2Roman Falls3Natali Cvetanovska4Alison Beauchamp5Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences Deakin University Geelong Victoria AustraliaLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Digital Health and Prevention Salzburg AustriaSchool of Rural Health Monash University Warragul Victoria AustraliaWestern Centre for Health Research and Education, Sunshine Hospital St Albans Victoria AustraliaSchool of Rural Health Monash University Warragul Victoria AustraliaSchool of Rural Health Monash University Warragul Victoria AustraliaAbstract Introduction There is growing evidence to support the use of co‐design in developing interventions across many disciplines. This scoping review aims to examine how co‐design methodology has been used in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) secondary prevention interventions within health and community settings. Methods We searched four academic databases for studies that used the co‐design approach to develop their intervention. Studies were included if consumers (adults with CVD) and key stakeholders (e.g. clinicians, service providers) were involved in the co‐design process. The review focused on methodology rather than traditional study outcomes; therefore, co‐design processes and activities were extracted and evaluated against a selected co‐design framework. Results Twenty‐two studies were included in this review. Studies were implemented across various settings with consumers and stakeholder groups most frequently consisting of patients and healthcare professionals, respectively. Most studies specifically stated that they used a ‘co‐design’ approach (n = 10); others used terms such as participatory action research (n = 3), user‐centred design (n = 3) and community‐based participatory research (n = 2). Although there was variability in terminology, co‐design processes, and participants, all studies adhered to the key principles of consumer engagement. Predominant co‐design activities included semistructured interviews, focus groups, co‐design/development workshops and advisory group meetings. Intervention effectiveness was assessed in eight studies showing mixed results. Conclusions This review provides an overview of how the co‐design approach has previously been used in the development of CVD secondary prevention interventions. These findings provide methodological considerations that can guide researchers and healthcare services when implementing co‐design to develop feasible and acceptable interventions that can improve outcomes for CVD populations. Patient or Public Contribution No patients, service users, caregivers, people with lived experience or members of the public were involved in this scoping review. This review article was written by academics who have undertaken a significant amount of co‐design work with consumers and stakeholders.https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13633cardiovascular diseaseco‐designcommunity‐based participatory researchconsumerssecondary preventionstakeholders |
| spellingShingle | Jason Talevski Stefan T. Kulnik Rebecca L. Jessup Roman Falls Natali Cvetanovska Alison Beauchamp Use of co‐design methodology in the development of cardiovascular disease secondary prevention interventions: A scoping review Health Expectations cardiovascular disease co‐design community‐based participatory research consumers secondary prevention stakeholders |
| title | Use of co‐design methodology in the development of cardiovascular disease secondary prevention interventions: A scoping review |
| title_full | Use of co‐design methodology in the development of cardiovascular disease secondary prevention interventions: A scoping review |
| title_fullStr | Use of co‐design methodology in the development of cardiovascular disease secondary prevention interventions: A scoping review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Use of co‐design methodology in the development of cardiovascular disease secondary prevention interventions: A scoping review |
| title_short | Use of co‐design methodology in the development of cardiovascular disease secondary prevention interventions: A scoping review |
| title_sort | use of co design methodology in the development of cardiovascular disease secondary prevention interventions a scoping review |
| topic | cardiovascular disease co‐design community‐based participatory research consumers secondary prevention stakeholders |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13633 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jasontalevski useofcodesignmethodologyinthedevelopmentofcardiovasculardiseasesecondarypreventioninterventionsascopingreview AT stefantkulnik useofcodesignmethodologyinthedevelopmentofcardiovasculardiseasesecondarypreventioninterventionsascopingreview AT rebeccaljessup useofcodesignmethodologyinthedevelopmentofcardiovasculardiseasesecondarypreventioninterventionsascopingreview AT romanfalls useofcodesignmethodologyinthedevelopmentofcardiovasculardiseasesecondarypreventioninterventionsascopingreview AT natalicvetanovska useofcodesignmethodologyinthedevelopmentofcardiovasculardiseasesecondarypreventioninterventionsascopingreview AT alisonbeauchamp useofcodesignmethodologyinthedevelopmentofcardiovasculardiseasesecondarypreventioninterventionsascopingreview |