The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

How and how well have older people been engaged in healthcare intervention design, development or delivery using co‐methodologies: a scoping review with narrative summary

How and how well have older people been engaged in healthcare intervention design, development or delivery using co‐methodologies: a scoping review with narrative summary
How and how well have older people been engaged in healthcare intervention design, development or delivery using co‐methodologies: a scoping review with narrative summary
Co-methodological working is gaining increasing traction in healthcare, but studies with older people have been slower to develop. Our aim was to investigate how and how well older people have been engaged in healthcare intervention design, development or delivery using co-methodologies. We conducted a systematic search of four electronic databases to identify international literature published between 2009 and November 2019. We included peer-reviewed empirical research of any design. Three authors screened papers. Our review is reported in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute manual for scoping reviews, we have referred to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement. We data extracted to a bespoke spreadsheet and used the Co:Create Co-production Matrix to guide quality appraisal. Included studies (n = 48) were diverse in nature of interventions, co-methodologies and reporting. We offer a narrative summary of included papers. Establishing how older people were engaged in co-methodological work was largely straightforward. How well this was done was more challenging, however we have identified gems of good practice and offered directions for future practice. The Co:Create Co-Production Matrix was the best fit for evaluating papers, however it is not intended as a measure per se. In essence we argue that notions of ‘best’ and ‘scores’ are an oxymoron in co-methodological working, what is important that: (a) researchers embrace these methods, (b) incremental change is the way forward, (c) researchers need to do what is right for people and purpose and (d) have time to consider and articulate why they are choosing this approach and how best this can be achieved for their particular situation. Future evaluation of participant's experience of the process would enable others to learn about what works for who and in what circumstances.
0966-0410
776-798
Cowdell, Fiona
42445fcb-cb89-4c68-a50b-1ab9fa350d90
Dyson, Judith
4dec4973-8876-494c-be06-091a0737dd24
Sykes, Michael
e75524cf-3cd7-4cbc-9648-5ad6b6a9f633
Dam, Rinita
d4d3739f-ce86-4dc9-b5cf-7e23ec52396f
Pendleton, Rose
5d5411de-be76-45c2-8fc3-ee650da4497a
Cowdell, Fiona
42445fcb-cb89-4c68-a50b-1ab9fa350d90
Dyson, Judith
4dec4973-8876-494c-be06-091a0737dd24
Sykes, Michael
e75524cf-3cd7-4cbc-9648-5ad6b6a9f633
Dam, Rinita
d4d3739f-ce86-4dc9-b5cf-7e23ec52396f
Pendleton, Rose
5d5411de-be76-45c2-8fc3-ee650da4497a

Cowdell, Fiona, Dyson, Judith, Sykes, Michael, Dam, Rinita and Pendleton, Rose (2020) How and how well have older people been engaged in healthcare intervention design, development or delivery using co‐methodologies: a scoping review with narrative summary. Health & Social Care in the Community, 30, 776-798. (doi:10.1111/hsc.13199).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Co-methodological working is gaining increasing traction in healthcare, but studies with older people have been slower to develop. Our aim was to investigate how and how well older people have been engaged in healthcare intervention design, development or delivery using co-methodologies. We conducted a systematic search of four electronic databases to identify international literature published between 2009 and November 2019. We included peer-reviewed empirical research of any design. Three authors screened papers. Our review is reported in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute manual for scoping reviews, we have referred to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement. We data extracted to a bespoke spreadsheet and used the Co:Create Co-production Matrix to guide quality appraisal. Included studies (n = 48) were diverse in nature of interventions, co-methodologies and reporting. We offer a narrative summary of included papers. Establishing how older people were engaged in co-methodological work was largely straightforward. How well this was done was more challenging, however we have identified gems of good practice and offered directions for future practice. The Co:Create Co-Production Matrix was the best fit for evaluating papers, however it is not intended as a measure per se. In essence we argue that notions of ‘best’ and ‘scores’ are an oxymoron in co-methodological working, what is important that: (a) researchers embrace these methods, (b) incremental change is the way forward, (c) researchers need to do what is right for people and purpose and (d) have time to consider and articulate why they are choosing this approach and how best this can be achieved for their particular situation. Future evaluation of participant's experience of the process would enable others to learn about what works for who and in what circumstances.

Text
Health Social Care Comm - 2020 - Cowdell - How and how well have older people been engaged in healthcare intervention - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (897kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 22 September 2020
Published date: 25 October 2020

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 509523
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/509523
ISSN: 0966-0410
PURE UUID: cc97d667-69f6-466d-b61b-3edb452f178d
ORCID for Rinita Dam: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-4620-7088

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 25 Feb 2026 17:32
Last modified: 26 Feb 2026 03:16

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Fiona Cowdell
Author: Judith Dyson
Author: Michael Sykes
Author: Rinita Dam ORCID iD
Author: Rose Pendleton

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×