Meaningful consumer involvement in cancer care: a systematic review on co-design methods and processes.

Anna Ugalde, Victoria M White, Patricia M Livingston, Anna Boltong, Skye Marshall, Nicole Kiss, Brenton Baguley, Leonie Young, Hannah Jongebloed, Kathy Bell, Sabe Sabesan, Dayna Swiatek, Joanne M Britto

Journal: JNCI cancer spectrum 2024;8(4):

PMID: 38897655

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Although the benefits of consumer involvement in research and health care initiatives are known, there is a need to optimize this for all people with cancer. This systematic review aimed to synthesize and evaluate the application of co-design in the oncology literature and develop recommendations to guide the application of optimal co-design processes and reporting in oncology research, practice, and policy.

METHODS

A systematic review of co-design studies in adults with cancer was conducted, searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases and included studies focused on 2 concepts, co-design and oncology.

RESULTS

A total of 5652 titles and abstracts were screened, resulting in 66 eligible publications reporting on 51 unique studies. Four frameworks were applied to describe the co-design initiatives. Most co-design initiatives were designed for use in an outpatient setting (n = 38; 74%) and were predominantly digital resources (n = 14; 27%) or apps (n = 12; 23%). Most studies (n = 25; 49%) used a co-production approach to consumer engagement. Although some studies presented strong co-design methodology, most (n = 36; 70%) did not report the co-design approach, and 14% used no framework. Reporting was poor for the participant level of involvement, the frequency, and time commitment of co-design sessions. Consumer participation level was predominantly collaborate (n = 25; 49%).

CONCLUSIONS

There are opportunities to improve the application of co-design in oncology research. This review has generated recommendations to guide 1) methodology and frameworks, 2) recruitment and engagement of co-design participants, and 3) evaluation of the co-design process. These recommendations can help drive appropriate, meaningful, and equitable co-design, leading to better cancer research and care.

© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.

Address: Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.; Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.; Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.; Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.; Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.; Cancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre, School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.; Bond University Nutrition & Dietetics Research Group, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.; School of Psychology, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.; Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.; Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.; Clinical Oncology Society of Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.; Clinical Oncology Society of Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.; Department of Medical Oncology, Townsville Cancer Centre, Townsville, QLD, Australia.; Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.; Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, NSW 2052, Australia.; Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton 3800, Victoria, Australia.; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.