Co-design for stroke intervention development: Results of a scoping review.

<h4>Background</h4>Co-design methodology seeks to actively engage end-users in developing interventions. It is increasingly used to design stroke interventions; however, limited guidance exists, particularly with/for individuals with stroke who have diverse cognitive, physical and functi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Hardeep Singh, Natasha Benn, Agnes Fung, Kristina M Kokorelias, Julia Martyniuk, Michelle L A Nelson, Heather Colquhoun, Jill I Cameron, Sarah Munce, Marianne Saragosa, Kian Godhwani, Aleena Khan, Paul Yejong Yoo, Kerry Kuluski
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2024-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0297162&type=printable
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1832540122012188672
author Hardeep Singh
Natasha Benn
Agnes Fung
Kristina M Kokorelias
Julia Martyniuk
Michelle L A Nelson
Heather Colquhoun
Jill I Cameron
Sarah Munce
Marianne Saragosa
Kian Godhwani
Aleena Khan
Paul Yejong Yoo
Kerry Kuluski
author_facet Hardeep Singh
Natasha Benn
Agnes Fung
Kristina M Kokorelias
Julia Martyniuk
Michelle L A Nelson
Heather Colquhoun
Jill I Cameron
Sarah Munce
Marianne Saragosa
Kian Godhwani
Aleena Khan
Paul Yejong Yoo
Kerry Kuluski
author_sort Hardeep Singh
collection DOAJ
description <h4>Background</h4>Co-design methodology seeks to actively engage end-users in developing interventions. It is increasingly used to design stroke interventions; however, limited guidance exists, particularly with/for individuals with stroke who have diverse cognitive, physical and functional abilities. Thus, we describe 1) the extent of existing research that has used co-design for stroke intervention development and 2) how co-design has been used to develop stroke interventions among studies that explicitly used co-design, including the rationale, types of co-designed stroke interventions, participants involved, research methodologies/approaches, methods of incorporating end-users in the research, co-design limitations, challenges and potential strategies reported by researchers.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A scoping review informed by Joanna Briggs Institute and Arksey & O'Malley methodology was conducted by searching nine databases on December 21, 2022, to locate English-language literature that used co-design to develop a stroke intervention. Additional data sources were identified through a hand search. Data sources were de-duplicated, and two research team members reviewed their titles, abstracts and full text to ensure they met the inclusion criteria. Data relating to the research objectives were extracted, analyzed, and reported numerically and descriptively.<h4>Results</h4>Data sources used co-design for stroke intervention development with (n = 89) and without (n = 139) explicitly using the term 'co-design.' Among studies explicitly using co-design, it was commonly used to understand end-user needs and generate new ideas. Many co-designed interventions were technology-based (65%), and 48% were for physical rehabilitation or activity-based. Co-design was commonly conducted with multiple participants (82%; e.g., individuals with stroke, family members/caregivers and clinicians) and used various methods to engage end-users, including focus groups and workshops. Limitations, challenges and potential strategies for recruitment, participant-engagement, contextual and logistical and ethics of co-designed interventions were described.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Given the increasing popularity of co-design as a methodology for developing stroke interventions internationally, these findings can inform future co-designed studies.
format Article
id doaj-art-8410d83e21ee4307b3cd973733298835
institution Kabale University
issn 1932-6203
language English
publishDate 2024-01-01
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
record_format Article
series PLoS ONE
spelling doaj-art-8410d83e21ee4307b3cd9737332988352025-02-05T05:32:31ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032024-01-01192e029716210.1371/journal.pone.0297162Co-design for stroke intervention development: Results of a scoping review.Hardeep SinghNatasha BennAgnes FungKristina M KokoreliasJulia MartyniukMichelle L A NelsonHeather ColquhounJill I CameronSarah MunceMarianne SaragosaKian GodhwaniAleena KhanPaul Yejong YooKerry Kuluski<h4>Background</h4>Co-design methodology seeks to actively engage end-users in developing interventions. It is increasingly used to design stroke interventions; however, limited guidance exists, particularly with/for individuals with stroke who have diverse cognitive, physical and functional abilities. Thus, we describe 1) the extent of existing research that has used co-design for stroke intervention development and 2) how co-design has been used to develop stroke interventions among studies that explicitly used co-design, including the rationale, types of co-designed stroke interventions, participants involved, research methodologies/approaches, methods of incorporating end-users in the research, co-design limitations, challenges and potential strategies reported by researchers.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A scoping review informed by Joanna Briggs Institute and Arksey & O'Malley methodology was conducted by searching nine databases on December 21, 2022, to locate English-language literature that used co-design to develop a stroke intervention. Additional data sources were identified through a hand search. Data sources were de-duplicated, and two research team members reviewed their titles, abstracts and full text to ensure they met the inclusion criteria. Data relating to the research objectives were extracted, analyzed, and reported numerically and descriptively.<h4>Results</h4>Data sources used co-design for stroke intervention development with (n = 89) and without (n = 139) explicitly using the term 'co-design.' Among studies explicitly using co-design, it was commonly used to understand end-user needs and generate new ideas. Many co-designed interventions were technology-based (65%), and 48% were for physical rehabilitation or activity-based. Co-design was commonly conducted with multiple participants (82%; e.g., individuals with stroke, family members/caregivers and clinicians) and used various methods to engage end-users, including focus groups and workshops. Limitations, challenges and potential strategies for recruitment, participant-engagement, contextual and logistical and ethics of co-designed interventions were described.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Given the increasing popularity of co-design as a methodology for developing stroke interventions internationally, these findings can inform future co-designed studies.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0297162&type=printable
spellingShingle Hardeep Singh
Natasha Benn
Agnes Fung
Kristina M Kokorelias
Julia Martyniuk
Michelle L A Nelson
Heather Colquhoun
Jill I Cameron
Sarah Munce
Marianne Saragosa
Kian Godhwani
Aleena Khan
Paul Yejong Yoo
Kerry Kuluski
Co-design for stroke intervention development: Results of a scoping review.
PLoS ONE
title Co-design for stroke intervention development: Results of a scoping review.
title_full Co-design for stroke intervention development: Results of a scoping review.
title_fullStr Co-design for stroke intervention development: Results of a scoping review.
title_full_unstemmed Co-design for stroke intervention development: Results of a scoping review.
title_short Co-design for stroke intervention development: Results of a scoping review.
title_sort co design for stroke intervention development results of a scoping review
url https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0297162&type=printable
work_keys_str_mv AT hardeepsingh codesignforstrokeinterventiondevelopmentresultsofascopingreview
AT natashabenn codesignforstrokeinterventiondevelopmentresultsofascopingreview
AT agnesfung codesignforstrokeinterventiondevelopmentresultsofascopingreview
AT kristinamkokorelias codesignforstrokeinterventiondevelopmentresultsofascopingreview
AT juliamartyniuk codesignforstrokeinterventiondevelopmentresultsofascopingreview
AT michellelanelson codesignforstrokeinterventiondevelopmentresultsofascopingreview
AT heathercolquhoun codesignforstrokeinterventiondevelopmentresultsofascopingreview
AT jillicameron codesignforstrokeinterventiondevelopmentresultsofascopingreview
AT sarahmunce codesignforstrokeinterventiondevelopmentresultsofascopingreview
AT mariannesaragosa codesignforstrokeinterventiondevelopmentresultsofascopingreview
AT kiangodhwani codesignforstrokeinterventiondevelopmentresultsofascopingreview
AT aleenakhan codesignforstrokeinterventiondevelopmentresultsofascopingreview
AT paulyejongyoo codesignforstrokeinterventiondevelopmentresultsofascopingreview
AT kerrykuluski codesignforstrokeinterventiondevelopmentresultsofascopingreview