» Articles » PMID: 37735397

Strategies for Enacting Health Policy Codesign: a Scoping Review and Direction for Research

Overview
Journal Implement Sci
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Health Services
Date 2023 Sep 22
PMID 37735397
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Strategies for supporting evidence-informed health policy are a recognized but understudied area of policy dissemination and implementation science. Codesign describes a set of strategies potentially well suited to address the complexity presented by policy formation and implementation. We examine the health policy literature describing the use of codesign in initiatives intended to combine diverse sources of knowledge and evidence in policymaking.

Methods: The search included PubMed, MEDLINE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in November 2022 and included papers published between 1996 and 2022. Terms included codesign, health, policy, and system terminology. Title and abstracts were reviewed in duplicate and included if efforts informed policy or system-level decision-making. Extracted data followed scoping review guidelines for location, evaluation method, health focus, codesign definition, description, level of health system user input, sectors involved, and reported benefits and challenges.

Results: From 550 titles, 23 citations describing 32 policy codesign studies were included from multiple continents (Australia/New Zealand, 32%; UK/Europe, 32%; South America, 14%; Africa, 9%; USA/Canada 23%). Document type was primarily case study (77%). The area of health focus was widely distributed. Policy type was more commonly little p policy (47%), followed by big p policy (25%), and service innovations that included policy-enabled funding (25%). Models and frameworks originated from formal design (e.g., human-centered or participatory design (44%), political science (38%), or health service research (16%). Reported outcomes included community mobilization (50%), policy feasibility (41%), improved multisector alignment (31%), and introduction of novel ideas and critical thinking (47%). Studies engaging policy users in full decision-making roles self-reported higher levels of community mobilization and community needs than other types of engagement.

Discussion: Policy codesign is theoretically promising and is gaining interest among diverse health sectors for addressing the complexity of policy formation and implementation. The maturity of the science is just emerging. We observed trends in the association of codesign strategies and outcomes that suggests a research agenda in this area could provide practical insights for tailoring policy codesign to respond to local contextual factors including values, needs, and resources.

Citing Articles

Enhancing access to primary care is critical to the future of an equitable health service: using process visualisation to understand the impact of national policy in the UK.

Litchfield I, Gale N, Greenfield S, Shukla D, Burrows M Front Health Serv. 2025; 4:1499847.

PMID: 39931455 PMC: 11807964. DOI: 10.3389/frhs.2024.1499847.


Evaluation of the initial rollout of the physical activity referral standards policy in Scotland: a qualitative study.

Hanson C, Mchale S, Neubeck L, Dougall N, Kelly P BMJ Open. 2025; 15(1):e089723.

PMID: 39855657 PMC: 11758693. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089723.


Changing the trajectories of mental health difficulties in Norfolk and Suffolk: a research-priority-setting project with patients, the public, clinicians, policymakers and other stakeholders-study protocol.

Oduola S, Morgan C, Das-Munshi J, Broomfield N, Parretti H, Sanderson K BMJ Open. 2025; 15(1):e093980.

PMID: 39755565 PMC: 11749443. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-093980.


Operational and organizational variation in determinants of policy implementation success: the case of policies that earmark taxes for behavioral health services.

Purtle J, Stadnick N, Mauri A, Walker S, Bruns E, Aarons G Implement Sci. 2024; 19(1):73.

PMID: 39482703 PMC: 11526668. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-024-01401-8.


A Mixed-Methods Exploration of the Implementation of Policies That Earmarked Taxes for Behavioral Health.

Stadnick N, Geremia C, Mauri A, Swanson K, Wynecoop M, Purtle J Milbank Q. 2024; 102(4):913-943.

PMID: 39240049 PMC: 11654764. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12715.


References
1.
Beidas R, Becker-Haimes E, Adams D, Skriner L, Stewart R, Benjamin Wolk C . Feasibility and acceptability of two incentive-based implementation strategies for mental health therapists implementing cognitive-behavioral therapy: a pilot study to inform a randomized controlled trial. Implement Sci. 2017; 12(1):148. PMC: 5732393. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-017-0684-7. View

2.
Hoagwood K, Purtle J, Spandorfer J, Peth-Pierce R, Horwitz S . Aligning dissemination and implementation science with health policies to improve children's mental health. Am Psychol. 2020; 75(8):1130-1145. PMC: 8034490. DOI: 10.1037/amp0000706. View

3.
Purtle J, Nelson K, Horwitz S, McKay M, Hoagwood K . Determinants of using children's mental health research in policymaking: variation by type of research use and phase of policy process. Implement Sci. 2021; 16(1):13. PMC: 7815190. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-021-01081-8. View

4.
Brownson R, Kumanyika S, Kreuter M, Haire-Joshu D . Implementation science should give higher priority to health equity. Implement Sci. 2021; 16(1):28. PMC: 7977499. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-021-01097-0. View

5.
Brownson R, Fielding J, Green L . Building Capacity for Evidence-Based Public Health: Reconciling the Pulls of Practice and the Push of Research. Annu Rev Public Health. 2017; 39:27-53. PMC: 5972383. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-014746. View