Co-design for indigenous and other children and young people from priority social groups: A systematic review. (June 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: King, Paula Toko; Cormack, Donna; Edwards, Richard; Harris, Ricci; Paine, Sarah-Jane
• Is Part Of: SSM - population health. Volume 18(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-06
• Subjects: Co-design -- Equity -- Indigenous -- Children -- Youth -- Disability -- LGBTQIA+; Social medicine -- Periodicals; Medical anthropology -- Periodicals; Public health -- Periodicals; Psychology -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; 362.105
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2022.101077
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2352-8273

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Co-design has increasingly been posited as a useful approach for Indigenous peoples and other social groups that experience inequities. However, the relatively rapid rise in co-design rhetoric has not necessarily been accompanied by increased understanding of whether co-design works for these social groups, and how equity is addressed. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to identify the current state of co-design as theory and praxis within the context of health and/or disability related interventions or services, with a specific focus on equity considerations for Indigenous and other children and young people from priority social groups. Six electronic databases were searched systematically to identify peer-reviewed papers and grey literature (dissertation and theses) published between January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2020, and a hand-search of reference lists for selected full texts was undertaken. Results: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Although all studies used the term 'co-design', only three provided a definition of what they meant by use of the term. Nine studies described one or more theory-based frameworks and a total of 26 methods, techniques and tools were reported, with only one study describing a formal evaluation. The key mechanism by which equity was addressed appeared to be the inclusion of participants from a social group experiencing inequities within an area of interest. Conclusion: A dearth of information limits the extent to which the literature can be definitive as to whether co-design works for Indigenous and other children and young people from priority social groups, or whether co-design reduces health inequities. It is critical for quality reporting to occur regarding co-design definitions, theory, and praxis. There is an urgent requirement for evaluation research that focuses on co-design impacts and assesses the contribution of co-design to achieving equity. We also recommend culturally safe ethical processes be implemented whenever undertaking co-design. Highlights: Limited studies report co-design contribution to positive outcomes. Evaluation of co-design impacts and contribution to equity is urgently required. Culturally safe ethical processes must be implemented in co-design.