Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2024 Jul 1;8(4). doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkae048.
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.
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.
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%).
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.
尽管人们已经认识到让消费者参与研究和医疗保健计划的好处，但仍需要为所有癌症患者优化这一过程。本系统评价旨在综合评估肿瘤学文献中共同设计的应用，并制定指导最佳共同设计流程在肿瘤学研究、实践和政策中的应用和报告的建议。
对成人癌症共同设计研究进行了系统评价，检索了 MEDLINE、CINAHL、Embase 和 PsycINFO 数据库，包括关注共同设计和肿瘤学这两个概念的研究。
共筛选出 5652 篇标题和摘要，最终纳入 66 篇符合条件的文献，报道了 51 项独特的研究。四个框架被用来描述共同设计计划。大多数共同设计计划旨在用于门诊环境（n=38；74%），主要是数字资源（n=14；27%）或应用程序（n=12；23%）。大多数研究（n=25；49%）采用共同生产方法让消费者参与其中。尽管一些研究提出了强有力的共同设计方法，但大多数（n=36；70%）没有报告共同设计方法，14%的研究没有使用框架。参与者参与程度、共同设计会议的频率和时间承诺的报告情况较差。消费者参与水平主要是协作（n=25；49%）。
在肿瘤学研究中进一步改进共同设计的应用有很大的空间。本综述提出了一些建议，以指导 1）方法和框架，2）共同设计参与者的招募和参与，3）共同设计过程的评估。这些建议有助于推动适当、有意义和公平的共同设计，从而改善癌症的研究和护理。
