» Articles » PMID: 38897655

Meaningful Consumer Involvement in Cancer Care: a Systematic Review on Co-design Methods and Processes

Abstract

Objective: Although the benefits of consumer involvement in research and health care initiatives are known, there is a need to optimize this for all people with cancer. This systematic review aimed to synthesize and evaluate the application of co-design in the oncology literature and develop recommendations to guide the application of optimal co-design processes and reporting in oncology research, practice, and policy.

Methods: A systematic review of co-design studies in adults with cancer was conducted, searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases and included studies focused on 2 concepts, co-design and oncology.

Results: A total of 5652 titles and abstracts were screened, resulting in 66 eligible publications reporting on 51 unique studies. Four frameworks were applied to describe the co-design initiatives. Most co-design initiatives were designed for use in an outpatient setting (n = 38; 74%) and were predominantly digital resources (n = 14; 27%) or apps (n = 12; 23%). Most studies (n = 25; 49%) used a co-production approach to consumer engagement. Although some studies presented strong co-design methodology, most (n = 36; 70%) did not report the co-design approach, and 14% used no framework. Reporting was poor for the participant level of involvement, the frequency, and time commitment of co-design sessions. Consumer participation level was predominantly collaborate (n = 25; 49%).

Conclusions: There are opportunities to improve the application of co-design in oncology research. This review has generated recommendations to guide 1) methodology and frameworks, 2) recruitment and engagement of co-design participants, and 3) evaluation of the co-design process. These recommendations can help drive appropriate, meaningful, and equitable co-design, leading to better cancer research and care.

Citing Articles

Participant recruitment and retention in randomised controlled trials of melanoma surveillance: A scoping review.

Ackermann D, Bracken K, Hersch J, Janda M, Turner R, Bell K Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2025; 44:101461.

PMID: 40051673 PMC: 11883296. DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2025.101461.


Dietary Counselling Interventions in Malnutrition Research: Achieving an International Consensus on Best Practices Using an Amended Delphi Process.

Weekes C, de van der Schueren M, Keller H, Steiber A, Marshall S, Lim S J Hum Nutr Diet. 2025; 38(1):e70028.

PMID: 39967505 PMC: 11836635. DOI: 10.1111/jhn.70028.


How has co-design been used to address vaccine hesitancy globally? A systematic review.

Alpeza F, Avermark H, Gobbo E, Herzig van Wees S Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2024; 20(1):2431380.

PMID: 39660656 PMC: 11639369. DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2024.2431380.


The Development of Heart Failure Electronic-Message Driven Tips to Support Self-Management: Co-Design Case Study.

Ferguson C, William S, Allida S, Fulcher J, Jenkins A, Lattimore J JMIR Cardio. 2024; 8:e57328.

PMID: 39509714 PMC: 11563649. DOI: 10.2196/57328.

References
1.
Sparidaens E, Beerendonk C, Fleischer K, Nelen W, Braat D, Hermens R . Exploration of fertility and early menopause related information needs and development of online information for young breast cancer survivors. BMC Womens Health. 2022; 22(1):329. PMC: 9351061. DOI: 10.1186/s12905-022-01901-z. View

2.
Loeliger J, Dewar S, Kiss N, Drosdowsky A, Stewart J . Patient and carer experiences of nutrition in cancer care: a mixed-methods study. Support Care Cancer. 2021; 29(9):5475-5485. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-021-06111-1. View

3.
Loeliger J, Dewar S, Kiss N, Dumbrell J, Elliott A, Kaegi K . Co-design of a cancer nutrition care pathway by patients, carers, and health professionals: the CanEAT pathway. Support Care Cancer. 2023; 31(2):99. PMC: 9825355. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-022-07558-6. View

4.
Ankolekar A, Vanneste B, Bloemen-van Gurp E, van Roermund J, Van Limbergen E, van de Beek K . Development and validation of a patient decision aid for prostate Cancer therapy: from paternalistic towards participative shared decision making. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019; 19(1):130. PMC: 6624887. DOI: 10.1186/s12911-019-0862-4. View

5.
Boyd H, McKernon S, Mullin B, Old A . Improving healthcare through the use of co-design. N Z Med J. 2012; 125(1357):76-87. View