Strategies for enacting health policy codesign: a scoping review and direction for research

Implementation Science

Systematic Review

Sarah Cusworth Walker¹  McKenna Parnes¹  Betty Bekemeier²  Barbara Baquero³  Kashika Arora⁴ 

[1] Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Box 356560, Seattle, USA;School of Nursing, University of Washington, Box 357263, Seattle, USA;School of Public Health, University of Washington, Box 351621, 3980 15th Ave, Seattle, NE, USA;Seattle Children’s Hospital, 6901 Sand Point Way NE, 98115, Seattle, WA, USA;

关键词: Policy;    Codesign;    Scoping review;    Health;    Coproduction;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s13012-023-01295-y

 received in 2023-05-02, accepted in 2023-08-18,  发布年份 2023

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundStrategies 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsFrom 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.DiscussionPolicy 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.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023

【 图 表 】

Fig. 5

Fig. 1

13690_2023_1170_Article_IEq217.gif