Rapid overview of reviews finds reported benefits of co-design across health research, highlighting the urgent need for standardized terminology and robust empirical evaluation.
Research co-design appears to be widely used but seldom described or evaluated in detail. Though it has rarely been tested empirically or experimentally, existing research suggests that it can benefit researchers, practitioners, research processes and research outcomes. Realising the potential of research co-design may require the development of clearer and more consistent terminology, better reporting of the activities involved and better evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Slattery et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: