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