PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Strategies for supporting evidence-informed health policy are a recognized but understudied area of policy dissemination and implementation science. Codesign describes a set of strategies potentially well suited to address the complexity presented by policy formation and implementation. We examine the health policy literature describing the use of codesign in initiatives intended to combine diverse sources of knowledge and evidence in policymaking.
The search included PubMed, MEDLINE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in November 2022 and included papers published between 1996 and 2022. Terms included codesign, health, policy, and system terminology. Title and abstracts were reviewed in duplicate and included if efforts informed policy or system-level decision-making. Extracted data followed scoping review guidelines for location, evaluation method, health focus, codesign definition, description, level of health system user input, sectors involved, and reported benefits and challenges.
From 550 titles, 23 citations describing 32 policy codesign studies were included from multiple continents (Australia/New Zealand, 32%; UK/Europe, 32%; South America, 14%; Africa, 9%; USA/Canada 23%). Document type was primarily case study (77%). The area of health focus was widely distributed. Policy type was more commonly little p policy (47%), followed by big p policy (25%), and service innovations that included policy-enabled funding (25%). Models and frameworks originated from formal design (e.g., human-centered or participatory design (44%), political science (38%), or health service research (16%). Reported outcomes included community mobilization (50%), policy feasibility (41%), improved multisector alignment (31%), and introduction of novel ideas and critical thinking (47%). Studies engaging policy users in full decision-making roles self-reported higher levels of community mobilization and community needs than other types of engagement.
Policy codesign is theoretically promising and is gaining interest among diverse health sectors for addressing the complexity of policy formation and implementation. The maturity of the science is just emerging. We observed trends in the association of codesign strategies and outcomes that suggests a research agenda in this area could provide practical insights for tailoring policy codesign to respond to local contextual factors including values, needs, and resources.
The search included PubMed, MEDLINE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in November 2022 and included papers published between 1996 and 2022. Terms included codesign, health, policy, and system terminology. Title and abstracts were reviewed in duplicate and included if efforts informed policy or system-level decision-making. Extracted data followed scoping review guidelines for location, evaluation method, health focus, codesign definition, description, level of health system user input, sectors involved, and reported benefits and challenges.
From 550 titles, 23 citations describing 32 policy codesign studies were included from multiple continents (Australia/New Zealand, 32%; UK/Europe, 32%; South America, 14%; Africa, 9%; USA/Canada 23%). Document type was primarily case study (77%). The area of health focus was widely distributed. Policy type was more commonly little p policy (47%), followed by big p policy (25%), and service innovations that included policy-enabled funding (25%). Models and frameworks originated from formal design (e.g., human-centered or participatory design (44%), political science (38%), or health service research (16%). Reported outcomes included community mobilization (50%), policy feasibility (41%), improved multisector alignment (31%), and introduction of novel ideas and critical thinking (47%). Studies engaging policy users in full decision-making roles self-reported higher levels of community mobilization and community needs than other types of engagement.
Policy codesign is theoretically promising and is gaining interest among diverse health sectors for addressing the complexity of policy formation and implementation. The maturity of the science is just emerging. We observed trends in the association of codesign strategies and outcomes that suggests a research agenda in this area could provide practical insights for tailoring policy codesign to respond to local contextual factors including values, needs, and resources.
摘要：
背景：支持循证卫生政策的策略是政策传播和实施科学中公认但研究不足的领域。Cdesign描述了一组可能非常适合解决策略形成和实施所带来的复杂性的策略。我们研究了卫生政策文献，这些文献描述了在旨在将各种知识来源和证据结合在决策中的举措中使用协同设计。
方法：搜索包括PubMed，MEDLINE,PsychInfo,CINAHL,WebofScience,和GoogleScholar于2022年11月发表，其中包括1996年至2022年之间发表的论文。条款包括codesign，健康,政策,和系统术语。标题和摘要一式两份进行了审查，如果努力为政策或系统级决策提供了信息，则将其包括在内。提取的数据遵循位置范围审查指南，评价方法，健康焦点,codesign定义，描述,卫生系统用户输入水平，相关部门，并报告了收益和挑战。
结果：来自550个标题，来自多个大洲的23篇引文描述了32项政策协同设计研究(澳大利亚/新西兰，32%；英国/欧洲，32%；南美，14%；非洲，9%；美国/加拿大23%）。文件类型主要是案例研究（77%）。健康重点领域分布广泛。政策类型更常见的是小p政策(47%)，其次是大p政策(25%)，和服务创新，包括政策支持的资金(25%)。源自正式设计的模型和框架(例如，以人为本或参与式设计(44%)，政治学（38%），或卫生服务研究(16%)。报告的结果包括社区动员(50%)，政策可行性(41%)，改进了多部门一致性(31%)，并引入新颖的想法和批判性思维（47％）。研究使政策用户参与全面决策角色，自我报告的社区动员和社区需求水平高于其他类型的参与。
结论：政策协同设计在理论上是有希望的，并且在解决政策形成和实施的复杂性方面正在引起不同卫生部门的兴趣。科学的成熟正在出现。我们观察到共同设计策略和结果的关联趋势，这表明该领域的研究议程可以为定制政策共同设计提供实用的见解，以应对当地的环境因素，包括价值观，需要,和资源。
方法：搜索包括PubMed，MEDLINE,PsychInfo,CINAHL,WebofScience,和GoogleScholar于2022年11月发表，其中包括1996年至2022年之间发表的论文。条款包括codesign，健康,政策,和系统术语。标题和摘要一式两份进行了审查，如果努力为政策或系统级决策提供了信息，则将其包括在内。提取的数据遵循位置范围审查指南，评价方法，健康焦点,codesign定义，描述,卫生系统用户输入水平，相关部门，并报告了收益和挑战。
结果：来自550个标题，来自多个大洲的23篇引文描述了32项政策协同设计研究(澳大利亚/新西兰，32%；英国/欧洲，32%；南美，14%；非洲，9%；美国/加拿大23%）。文件类型主要是案例研究（77%）。健康重点领域分布广泛。政策类型更常见的是小p政策(47%)，其次是大p政策(25%)，和服务创新，包括政策支持的资金(25%)。源自正式设计的模型和框架(例如，以人为本或参与式设计(44%)，政治学（38%），或卫生服务研究(16%)。报告的结果包括社区动员(50%)，政策可行性(41%)，改进了多部门一致性(31%)，并引入新颖的想法和批判性思维（47％）。研究使政策用户参与全面决策角色，自我报告的社区动员和社区需求水平高于其他类型的参与。
结论：政策协同设计在理论上是有希望的，并且在解决政策形成和实施的复杂性方面正在引起不同卫生部门的兴趣。科学的成熟正在出现。我们观察到共同设计策略和结果的关联趋势，这表明该领域的研究议程可以为定制政策共同设计提供实用的见解，以应对当地的环境因素，包括价值观，需要,和资源。
