OBJECTIVE: There is a growing emphasis on healthcare professionals\' (HCPs) role in managing cardiometabolic risk factors to reduce health disparity for immigrants in developed countries. This scoping review aimed to analyse evidence about HCPs\' knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of managing cardiometabolic risk factors among Southeast Asian (SEA) immigrants in developed countries.
METHODS: Primary studies from inception to July 17, 2023, from four databases: PubMed/Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were included. This review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology and reported in line with PRISMA-ScR.
RESULTS: Of 619 identified studies, seven met the inclusion criteria. All studies discussed HCPs\' knowledge, six explored attitudes, and three described practices specific to SEA immigrants. The extracted data were analysed using descriptive qualitative content analysis and classified into barriers and facilitators. Barriers included cultural discordance and acculturation challenges (patient level); gaps in cultural understanding, communication and clinical skills (healthcare team level); limited immigrant-specific resources (organisation level); and funding constraints (environment level). Facilitators included community and provider support (patient level), awareness and desires to provide immigrant-specific care (healthcare team level), availability of culturally appropriate services (organisation level), and multicultural agendas and policies (environment level).
CONCLUSIONS: The barriers and facilitators faced by HCPs caring for SEA immigrants with cardiometabolic syndromes share similarities with other immigrant groups. Future research focused on co-production involving immigrant patients, their communities, and HCPs in healthcare service design is required to support HCPs in providing culturally appropriate care and promoting health equity regardless of ethnic, cultural, or linguistic backgrounds.

Recent years have seen a dramatic growth in interest in the nature and extent of co-production in the health and social care sectors. Due to the proliferation of work on co-production, there is variation in practice in how co-production is defined, understood, and used in practice. We conducted a narrative review to explore, and provide an overview of, which models of health and social care co-production have been developed, applied, and critiqued over recent decades. Seventy-three peer-reviewed articles met our inclusion criteria. In this set of articles, we identified three broad types of models: conceptual/theoretical, practice-oriented, and presenting a typology. We found that practice-oriented models, predominantly from the Health Services Research and Quality Improvement literature, had largely not drawn on conceptual/theoretical models from the disciplinary fields of Public Administration & Management and Sociology. In particular, they have largely neglected theoretical perspectives on relationships and power and agency in co-production work. The concepts of Service-Dominant Logic and Public Service-Dominant Logic as ways to think about the joint, collaborative process of producing new value, particularly in the context of the use of a service, have also been neglected. Our review has identified distinct literatures which have contributed a variety of models of health and social care co-production. Our findings highlight under-explored dimensions of co-production that merit greater attention in the health and social care contexts. The overview of models of co-production we provide aims to offer a useful platform for the integration of different perspectives on co-production in future research and practice in health and social care.

UNASSIGNED: Post-diagnostic support is a significant factor in facilitating personal recovery following a diagnosis of dementia, but access is often inconsistent and insufficient. Recovery Colleges offer peer-led, co-produced courses that can support people to have meaningful lives and have been adapted for use in the context of dementia. A realist review was conducted to understand the application and sustainability of Recovery College dementia courses.
UNASSIGNED: An iterative, five-step process combined literature published to 2023 with knowledge from stakeholders with lived and professional experience of dementia involved with Recovery College dementia courses (PROSPERO registration CRD42021293687).
UNASSIGNED: Thirty-five documents and discussions with 19 stakeholders were used to build the initial programme theory comprising of 24 context-mechanism-outcome configurations. Reoccurring factors included: attending to aspects of co-production and course delivery to ensure they promoted inclusion and were not compromised by organisational pressures; how stigma impacted access to course opportunities; and embedding personal recovery principles throughout course development to be relevant for people living with dementia and those who support them.
UNASSIGNED: People struggling to reconcile their future alongside dementia need practical and emotional support to access and benefit from Recovery College dementia courses, ways to achieve this will be explored through a realist evaluation.

UNASSIGNED: To investigate the characteristics of studies that included underrepresented speech-language pathologists (SLPs) as research participants.
UNASSIGNED: A scoping review was conducted using the principles of the transformative research paradigm, which promotes the meaningful involvement and empowerment of marginalised groups. Co-production with minority SLPs was facilitated. The search strategy was run in six databases, and the transformative checklist used for analysis.
UNASSIGNED: Twenty studies were included. Bilingual and male SLPs were among the most commonly included underrepresented SLPs. Most studies were conducted in the USA (n = 16), and used survey methods. The studies provided valuable insights into the experiences and practices of underrepresented SLPs, and yielded practical solutions to foster inclusion and diversity in the profession. Most studies demonstrated a transformative potential, but the active engagement of underrepresented SLP participants in the research cycle was rarely demonstrated.
UNASSIGNED: This review calls for a shift in how and why research is conducted when including underrepresented SLP participants. Through the lens of the transformative research paradigm, we can rethink the broader aim of research and the role of researchers and participants. Using research as a platform to give visibility, voice, and agency to minority groups can stimulate change and equity in the profession.

UNASSIGNED: Smartphone apps (apps) are widely recognised as promising tools for improving access to mental healthcare. However, a key challenge is the development of digital interventions that are acceptable to end users. Co-production with providers and stakeholders is increasingly positioned as the gold standard for improving uptake, engagement, and healthcare outcomes. Nevertheless, clear guidance around the process of co-production is lacking. The objectives of this review were to: (i) present an overview of the methods and approaches to co-production when designing, producing, and evaluating digital mental health interventions; and (ii) explore the barriers and facilitators affecting co-production in this context.
UNASSIGNED: A pre-registered (CRD42023414007) systematic review was completed in accordance with The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Five databases were searched. A co-produced bespoke quality appraisal tool was developed with an expert by experience to assess the quality of the co-production methods and approaches. A narrative synthesis was conducted.
UNASSIGNED: Twenty-six studies across 24 digital mental health interventions met inclusion criteria. App interventions were rarely co-produced with end users throughout all stages of design, development, and evaluation. Co-producing digital mental health interventions added value by creating culturally sensitive and acceptable interventions. Reported challenges included resource issues exacerbated by the digital nature of the intervention, variability across stakeholder suggestions, and power imbalances between stakeholders and researchers.
UNASSIGNED: Variation in approaches to co-producing digital mental health interventions is evident, with inconsistencies between stakeholder groups involved, stage of involvement, stakeholders\' roles and methods employed.

There is growing evidence of the value of co-design and partnering with students in the design, development, and delivery of health professions education (HPE). However, the way in which students participate in co-designing HPE remains largely unexplored and there is little guidance on how to embed and strengthen partnerships with students. Using scoping review methodology, we identified and aggregated research reporting studies in which students were active partners in co-designing formal curricula in HPE. After searching five databases and screening 12,656 articles against inclusion criteria, 21 studies were identified. We found that most of the research was based in medical programs (n = 15) across Western contexts. Studies were mostly descriptive case reports (n = 10), with only three studies utilising participatory/action research designs. The co-designed outputs were mostly classroom-based learning on challenging HPE topics, for example, ethics, health inequities, racial and sexual bias, global health, and Indigenous health. Detailed descriptions of student-faculty partnerships and underpinning approaches were lacking overall. To optimise co-design methods, HPE and research require deeper engagement with critical research and pedagogical approaches and more robust evaluations of the processes, outputs and outcomes of co-design. In pedagogical practices, this necessitates challenging institutional structures, teaching and learning cultures and relational elements, such as through creating formal roles and opportunities for students as active co-design partners and fostering more equitable student-faculty positioning in HPE.

UNASSIGNED: There is a requirement for health and care systems and services to work on an equitable basis with people who use and provide integrated care. In response, co-production has become essential in the design and transformation of services. Globally, an array of approaches have been implemented to achieve this. This unique review explores multi-context and multi-method examples of co-production in integrated care using an exceptional combination of methods.
UNASSIGNED: To review and synthesise evidence that examines how co-production with service users, unpaid carers and members of staff can affect the design and transformation of integrated care services.
UNASSIGNED: Systematic review using meta-ethnography with input from a patient and public involvement (PPI) co-production advisory group. Meta-ethnography can generate theories by interpreting patterns between studies set in different contexts. Nine academic and four grey literature databases were searched for publications between 2012-2022. Data were extracted, analysed, translated and interpreted using the seven phases of meta-ethnography and PPI.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 2,097 studies were identified. 10 met the inclusion criteria. Studies demonstrated a variety of integrated care provisions for diverse populations. Co-production was most successful through person-centred design, innovative planning, and collaboration. Key impacts on service transformation were structural changes, accessibility, and acceptability of service delivery. The methods applied organically drew out new interpretations, namely a novel cyclic framework for application within integrated care.
UNASSIGNED: Effective co-production requires a process with a well-defined focus. Implementing co-delivery, with peer support, facilitates service user involvement to be embedded at a higher level on the \'ladder of co-production\'. An additional step on the ladder is proposed; a cyclic co-delivery framework. This innovative and operational development has potential to enable better-sustained person-centred integrated care services.

BACKGROUND: The term \'care-experienced\' refers to anyone who is currently in care or has been in care at any stage in their life. A complex interplay of factors leads to care-experienced children and young people (CECYP) experiencing poorer oral health and access to dental care than their peers. A rapid review of the co-production of health and social care research with vulnerable children and young people (CYP) was carried out to inform the development of a co-produced research project exploring the oral health behaviours and access to dental services of CECYP. Here, \'co-production\' refers to the involvement of CYP in the planning or conduct of research with explicit roles in which they generate ideas, evidence and research outputs.
OBJECTIVE: To learn how to meaningfully involve vulnerable CYP in the co-production of health and social science research.
OBJECTIVE: To identify: Different approaches to facilitating the engagement of vulnerable CYP in co-production of health and social science research; different activities carried out in such approaches, challenges to engaging vulnerable CYP in co-production of health and social science research and ways to overcome them and areas of best practice in relation to research co-production with vulnerable CYP.
METHODS: A rapid review of peer-reviewed articles was conducted in six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, SocINDEX, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science) and grey literature to identify studies that engaged vulnerable CYP in co-approaches to health and social research.
RESULTS: Of 1394 documents identified in the search, 40 were included and analysed. A number of different approaches to co-production were used in the studies. The CYP was involved in a range of activities, chiefly the development of data collection tools, data collection and dissemination. Individual challenges for CYP and researchers, practical and institutional factors and ethical considerations impacted the success of co-production.
CONCLUSIONS: Co-production of health and social science with vulnerable CYP presents challenges to researchers and CYP calling for all to demonstrate reflexivity and awareness of biases, strengths and limitations. Used appropriately and well, co-production offers benefits to researchers and CYP and can contribute to research that reflects the needs of vulnerable CYP. Adherence to the key principles of inclusion, safeguarding, respect and well-being facilitates this approach.
UNASSIGNED: Members of our patient and public involvement and stakeholder groups contributed to the interpretation of the review findings. This manuscript was written together with a young care leaver, Skye Boswell, who is one of the authors. She contributed to the preparation of the manuscript, reviewing the findings and their interpretation.

BACKGROUND: When people who can use or benefit from research findings are engaged as partners on study teams, the quality and impact of findings are better. These people can include patients/consumers and clinicians who do not identify as researchers. They are referred to as \"knowledge users\". This partnered approach is called integrated knowledge translation (IKT). We know little about knowledge users\' involvement in the conduct of systematic reviews. We aimed to evaluate team members\' degree of meaningful engagement and their perceptions of having used an IKT approach when updating the Cochrane Review of Patient Decision Aids.
METHODS: We conducted a pre-post mixed methods study. We surveyed all team members at two time points. Before systematic review conduct, all participating team members indicated their preferred level of involvement within each of the 12 steps of the systematic review process from \"Screen titles/abstracts\" to \"Provide feedback on draft article\". After, they reported on their degree of satisfaction with their achieved level of engagement across each step and the degree of meaningful engagement using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS-22) across 7 domains scored from 100 (extremely meaningful engagement) to 0 (no meaningful engagement). We solicited their experiences with the IKT approach using open-ended questions. We analyzed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data using content analysis. We triangulated data at the level of study design and interpretation.
RESULTS: Of 21 team members, 20 completed the baseline survey (95.2% response rate) and 17/20 (85.0% response rate) the follow-up survey. There were 11 (55%) researchers, 3 (15%) patients/consumers, 5 (25%) clinician-researchers, and 1 (5%) graduate student. At baseline, preferred level of involvement in the 12 systematic review steps varied from n = 3 (15%) (search grey literature sources) to n = 20 (100%) (provide feedback on the systematic review article). At follow-up, 16 (94.1%) participants were totally or very satisfied with the extent to which they were involved in these steps. All (17, 100%) agreed that the process was co-production. Total PEIRS-22 scores revealed most participants reported extremely (13, 76.4%) or very (2, 11.8%) meaningful degree of engagement. Triangulated data revealed that participants indicated benefit to having been engaged in an authentic research process that incorporated diverse perspectives, resulting in better and more relevant outputs. Reported challenges were about time, resources, and the logistics of collaborating with a large group.
CONCLUSIONS: Following the use of an IKT approach during the conduct of a systematic review, team members reported high levels of meaningful engagement. These results contribute to our understanding of ways to co-produce systematic reviews.
When people who can use or benefit from research findings are engaged as partners on study teams, the quality and impact of findings are better. These people can include patients/consumers and clinicians who do not identify as researchers. This partnered approach is called integrated knowledge translation (IKT). This approach is rarely used and there is little information about using it with systematic reviews. A systematic review is a type of study that provides the best available evidence on a given topic by combining data from all existing studies. The aim of this study was to find out how engaged our team members felt when partnering on our systematic review about patient decision aids. Twenty of 21 team members participated in the study, including 11 researchers, 3 patients/consumers, 5 clinician-researchers, and 1 graduate student. We asked our team members to complete a survey about their experience as part of our IKT research process at two time points: before starting the study and after the study was done. Most team members felt extremely or very engaged in the process. All team members felt like partners. They gave examples of how this was achieved. Advantages to using the IKT approach included knowledge sharing, inclusion of more diverse voices, a more authentic research process, better and more relevant results, and personal benefits (e.g. enjoyment from being involved). Disadvantages to using this approach was that it took more time and resources. Three team members said there were no disadvantages. It is possible for patients/consumers and clinicians to partner and feel engaged with research teams doing systematic reviews. Our findings may help researchers engage knowledge users as equal partners on study teams.

BACKGROUND: In disability studies belonging is emerging as a promising area of study. Inclusive research, based as it is on lived experience perspectives, is likely to provide salient insights into belonging in the lives of people with intellectual disabilities.
METHODS: A systematic review utilising four databases and five leading journals in the field of intellectual disabilities was used. Content analysis and a deductive synthesis of the extracted data was undertaken.
RESULTS: A high level of confluence was found between the findings of the included studies and key themes of belonging identified in the wider literature. Beyond this, studies utilising inclusive research approaches have contributed novel findings about belonging in the lives of people with intellectual disabilities.
CONCLUSIONS: Inclusive research approaches to belonging may provide innovative and responsive frameworks to support people to develop a sense of being connected and \"at home\" in themselves and in their communities.