Griffith Business School, Social Marketing @ Griffith, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Centre for Youth Substance Abuse Research, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Front Public Health. 2021 Mar 15;9:634102. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.634102. eCollection 2021.
Addressing the need for collaborative involvement in health intervention design requires application of processes that researchers and practitioners can apply confidently to actively involve end-users and wider stakeholder groups. Co-creation enables participation by focusing on empowering a range of stakeholders with opportunities to influence the final intervention design. While collaboration with users and stakeholders during intervention design processes are considered vital, clear articulation of procedures and considerations for various co-creation methodologies warrants further research attention. This paper is based on two case studies conducted in Australia and Denmark where researchers co-created virtual reality interventions in an alcohol prevention context. This paper explored and reflected on two co-creation methods-co-design and the Living Lab-and showcased the different processes and procedures of each approach. The study demonstrates that both approaches have merit, yet highlights tensions in distinguishing between the application of each of the respective steps undertaken in each of the processes. While a lot of similarities exist between approaches, differences are evident. Overall, it can be said that the Living Lab is broader in scope and processes applied within the Living Labs approach are more abstract. The co-design process that we applied in the first case study is described more granularly delivering a clear a step-by-step guide that practitioners can implement to co-design solutions that end-users value and that stakeholders support. An agenda to guide future research is outlined challenging researchers to identify the most effective co-creation approach.
为满足健康干预设计中协作参与的需求,需要应用研究人员和从业者能够自信地应用的流程,积极地让最终用户和更广泛的利益相关者群体参与进来。共同创造通过关注赋予一系列利益相关者权力来实现参与,使他们有机会影响最终的干预设计。虽然在干预设计过程中与用户和利益相关者的合作被认为是至关重要的,但对于各种共同创造方法的程序和考虑因素的明确阐述需要进一步研究关注。本文基于在澳大利亚和丹麦进行的两项案例研究,研究人员在酒精预防背景下共同创建了虚拟现实干预措施。本文探讨并反思了两种共同创造方法——共同设计和生活实验室,并展示了每种方法的不同过程和程序。研究表明,这两种方法都有其优点,但也强调了在区分每种方法所采用的步骤方面存在紧张关系。虽然这些方法之间存在很多相似之处,但差异也很明显。总的来说,可以说生活实验室的范围更广,应用于生活实验室方法的过程更抽象。我们在第一个案例研究中应用的共同设计过程描述得更详细,提供了一个清晰的逐步指导,从业者可以根据该指导来共同设计最终用户重视且利益相关者支持的解决方案。本文概述了一个指导未来研究的议程,挑战研究人员确定最有效的共同创造方法。