Co-design for indigenous and other children and young people from priority social groups: A systematic review

SSM: Population Health

Donna Cormack¹  Ricci Harris²  Sarah-Jane Paine³  Paula Toko King⁴  Richard Edwards⁴ 

[1] Corresponding author. Department of Public Health, University of Otago. 23A Mein Street, Newtown. Wellington, 6021, New Zealand.;Te Kupenga Hauora Māori (Department of Māori Health), The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand;Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand;Te Rōpū Rangahau Hauora a Eru Pōmare (Eru Pōmare Māori Health Research Unit), University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand;

关键词: Co-design;    Equity;    Indigenous;    Children;    Youth;    Disability;   

DOI  :  

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

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.

【 授权许可】

Unknown