Skip to main content
Download PDF

Adult co-creators’ emotional and psychological experiences of the co-creation process: a Health CASCADE scoping review protocol

Systematic Reviews volume 13, Article number: 231 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

There is a growing investment in the use of co-creation, reflected by an increase in co-created products, services, and interventions. At the same time, a growing recognition of the significance of co-creators’ experience can be detected but there is a gap in the aggregation of the literature with regard to experience. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review is to uncover the breadth of existing empirical research on co-creation experience, how it has been defined and assessed, and its key emotional and psychological characteristics in the context of co-created products, services, or interventions among adults.

Methods

The development of the search strategy was guided by the research question, Arksey, and O’Malley’s scoping review methodology guidelines, and through collaboration with members of the Health CASCADE consortium. The results of the search and the study inclusion process will be reported in full and presented both narratively and by use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram. Comprehensive searches of relevant electronic databases (e.g. Scopus) will be conducted to identify relevant papers. Snowball searches to identify additional papers through included full-text papers will be done using the artificial intelligence tool, namely, Connected Papers. All review steps will involve at least two reviewers. Studies in English, Dutch, Chinese, Spanish, and French, published from the year 1970 onwards, will be considered. Microsoft Excel software will be used to record and chart extracted data.

Discussion

The resulting scoping review could provide useful insights into adult co-creators’ experience of participating in the co-creation process. An increased understanding of the role of emotional and psychological experiences of participating in co-creation processes may help to inform the co-creation process and lead to potential benefits for the co-creators and co-created outcome.

Systematic review registration

10.5281/zenodo.7665851.

Peer Review reports

Background

Co-creation can be defined as “any act of collective creativity that involves a broad range of relevant and affected actors in creative problem-solving that aims to produce a desired outcome” [1]. Co-creation is increasingly acknowledged as a promising approach to address complex ‘wicked’ societal problems and develop more contextually relevant interventions to improve outcomes in a variety of settings [2]. By facilitating communication across sectors, integrating diverse forms of knowledge and expertise, and enabling local ownership, co-creation can be useful in a broad range of fields including, healthcare, community, and education [3].

The co-creation process is guided by participatory methodologies [4]. The goal of participatory research is to engage all those who are the subject of the research in all stages of the research [5]. Participatory research acknowledges the value of their contribution in a practical and collaborative way [5]. Co-creation builds on these participatory methodologies, to address the power imbalances stemming from social inequities and uses empowerment approaches to address and meet the needs of citizens [3]. Co-creation is more specific than the broad concept of participation, which also refers to passive involvement [6]. The ultimate goal of co-creation is to actively involve all relevant and affected stakeholders in all aspects of the co-creation process, such as planning or conducting [7].

Whilst the co-creation behaviour of participants in a co-creation process is mostly documented in the co-creation literature, the emotional and psychological experience of participating in the co-creation process has been given less attention [8, 9]. Co-creation behaviour is argued to comprise multiple behavioural dimensions that fall under two higher-order factors, namely, participation behaviour and citizenship behaviour [10]. The behavioural dimensions of participation behaviour include information seeking and sharing, responsible behaviour, and personal interaction. The dimensions of citizenship behaviour include feedback, advocacy, helping, and tolerance [10]. On the other hand, the co-creators’ experiences of participating in the co-creation process, hereby shortened to co-creation experience, capture co-creators’ emotional and psychological states; highlight the interactive component; and involve a continuous process as opposed to a single fixed-time event [9]. In brief, the co-creation experience, as defined for the purposes of this review, is the co-creators’ emotional and psychological states during active participation and interaction when engaging in the co-creation process [9]. Co-creation experience differs from co-creation behaviour due to its focus on the feelings and cognitions derived from the act of undertaking the co-creation behaviour [9].

Research indicates that active involvement in the co-creation process can have profound positive effects on increased health and performance outcomes, satisfaction, and well-being [11, 12]. For example, Leask et al. [13] reported older adults having positive experiences engaging with the co-creation of a health intervention, describing that participants’ role as co-researchers made it enjoyable, interesting, and rewarding. Similar findings from Rooijen et al. [14] indicated that participants felt empowered, liked the interactive characteristic of meetings, and felt they were valued contributors with a shared responsibility for the project. Positive emotional states like happiness or gratitude can foster trust, which is important for building relationships, whereas negative emotional states, like anger, uncertainty, and frustration, can decrease trust [15]. Building relationships is an important aspect of the co-creation process, in which experiencing positive emotions helps to create new relationships [16]. Therefore, positive emotions could also contribute to the functioning of the co-creation group(s) and the successful development of products like intervention components, tools, and further actions.

There are instances when co-creators can experience the co-creation process negatively. There exists some research to indicate how failed co-created services recovered can impact co-creators in terms of future intention to co-create, role clarity, and motivation [17]. However, there might be a lack of, or a lack of visibility of, literature documenting the negative emotional and psychological experiences associated with the co-creation process because of publication bias. Individual and interpersonal experience including group dynamics are central to the creation of value and innovation and this justifies the need to study the role of human experience in the context of co-creation [18, 19]. Figure 1 provides a visual depiction of the proposed connection between co-creation experience and the other elements of co-creation.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Suggested model of the relationship between co-creation experience, processes, behaviour, outcomes, impact, and future co-creation

Full size image

However, so far, there is a gap regarding the aggregation of the literature pertaining to co-creation experience. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review is to uncover the breadth of existing empirical research on co-creation experience, how it has been defined, and assessed and its key characteristics in the context of co-created products, services, or interventions among adults. As the focus is on the participant’s experience of the process and not the outcome, no limits have been applied to the co-creation context. Scoping reviews are exploratory in nature and systematically map available literature on a broad topic to identify key concepts, theories, sources of evidence, and research gaps [20]. A scoping review has been identified as an appropriate means to address this broad research question given that, to the authors’ knowledge, there has been no systematic review of co-creation experience literature, the phenomenon is not well understood or utilised, and studies span a wide variety of fields. The aim of the current scoping review is to deliver an evidence-based review of co-creators’ experiences of co-creating. This review will guide future research to advance evidence-based co-creation methods and inform guidance aimed at enhancing positive experiences for those participating in co-creation.

Research question

What is the current state of the science regarding adult co-creators’ emotional and psychological experiences of participating in co-creation?

Objectives

The objectives of this review are to:

  1. 1.

    Determine the extent of research on co-creation experience.

  2. 2.

    Uncover the range of and key characteristics of emotional and psychological experiences documented in the literature to date.

  3. 3.

    Identify any explicit or implicit underlying psychological theories drawn upon to explain the potential mechanism of the experience of co-creation.

  4. 4.

    Document any tools or technology used during the co-creation process that impacted the experience during co-creation or to make co-creation more successful.

Methodology

This scoping review protocol is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist (see Additional file 1).

Search strategy

The search strategy comprises three main stages (see Fig. 2). The first stage involved searching the newly created Health CASCADE Co-creation Database. This database was created by members of the Health CASCADE network and was aimed at collecting in one place the entire corpus of literature pertaining to participatory research and co-creation (1). This database was created using CINAHL, PubMed and all databases accessible via ProQuest through Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU) institutional licence (17 databases in total, APA PsycArticles®, APA PsycInfo®, Art, Design & Architecture Collection, British Periodicals, Coronavirus Research Database, Early Modern Books, Ebook Central, Entertainment Industry Magazine Archive, Humanities Index, Periodicals Archive Online, ProQuest One AcademicTrial-Limited time only, PTSDpubs, SciTech Premium Collection, Social Science Premium Collection, Sports Medicine & Education Index, The Vogue Archive, and The Women's Wear Daily Archive). The key search terms used in this search strategy are found in Table 1. ASReview, an artificial intelligence (AI) aided platform that helps find relevant records was used for screening the records to be included in this database. The AI performs a textual analysis of the provided records, based on active learning and prioritization. Given the large volume of records retrieved from PubMed, CINAHL, and all databases available through ProQuest with GCU access, AI was necessary to speed up the screening process. There are over 13,000 records contained in this database, with all titles and abstracts containing at least one of the search terms.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Stages of search strategy

Full size image
Table 1 Key search terms used to capture co-creation
Full size table

The Health CASCADE Co-creation Database was searched using free-text terms relating to co-creation experience (see Table 2). Search terms have been developed in reference to the research question and through consultation with members of the Health CASCADE consortium. The search will be piloted to check the appropriateness of keywords and to ensure known studies are identified.

Table 2 Search terms used to capture the co-creation experience
Full size table

The second stage of the search strategy is to use both sets of search terms (see Tables 1 and 2) in Scopus using the Boolean operator AND to combine the two sets. This is to provide additional robustness to the search. Due to the large volume of records retrieved (> 35,000) when combining the two sets of search terms, it is necessary to omit some search terms used to create the Health CASCADE Co-creation Database. Four search terms will be retained “co-creat*”, “co-production”, “co-design” and “experience-based design”. These search terms are specifically chosen because co-production and co-design are commonly used interchangeably with the term co-creation [21]. In addition, “experience-based design” is retained due to the obvious focus on the experience. We will include articles that meet our inclusion criteria for co-creation, regardless of the terminology used to describe the methodology. For pragmatic reasons, sources of unpublished empirical studies (including grey literature, theses, and dissertations) will not be searched for. The draft search strategy for Scopus is available in Additional file 2.

The final stage of the search is to employ snowballing to capture any additional articles that may be potentially missed. An artificial intelligence tool called Connected Papers [22] will be used to identify papers that (1) the included paper has cited (backward reference searching), and (2) papers that have since cited the included paper (forward reference searching).

The article selection process is considered an iterative process, whereby the search strategy will be initially broad and then refined based on abstracts retrieved and as reviewer familiarity with the literature increases. The concept of co-creation is defined differently depending on the setting and context and is often used interchangeably with similar, yet distinct concepts, but equally lacking a clear universal understanding [21]. Therefore, to account for the overlaps in terminology a broad scope will be initially implemented.

As recommended by Arksey and O’Malley [23], decisions on how to set search parameters will be made after a general scope of the field has been gained. Hence, this stage will require the reviewer(s) to engage in a reflexive way and repeat steps to ensure a comprehensive literature search with more sensitive searches [23, 24].

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

  • All study participants in the included papers must be adults, described as people aged 18 years and over with no upper limit. Children/adolescents are not included in this study as research indicates that there are differences between their emotional experiences in terms of emotional intensity and stability [25].

  • Empirical articles (i.e. primary research studies) include any qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method research designs that include a description of the co-created product, service, or intervention and an evaluation of the co-creators’ co-creation experience. Although scoping reviews can draw on evidence from non-empirical sources, this review imposes limits to include empirical sources only as empirical sources would be most useful and appropriate for contributing to an evidence-based understanding of co-creation methods.

  • Any context that involves the co-creation of a product, service, or intervention will be considered.

  • The Health CASCADE Co-creation Database is limited to searching records between 1st January 1970 and 1st December 2021. The search in Scopus will include records from 1st January 1970 until the date of the search.

  • The Health CASCADE Co-creation Database is limited to only include materials that are written in English. However, for the search conducted in Scopus, publications in English, Spanish, Dutch, French, and Chinese languages will also be considered, as the research team has proficient fluency in these languages.

Data extraction

Following the database search, articles will be exported as a CSV file for removal of duplicates in Excel. The articles will be imported and screened in Rayyan. The title and abstract of all studies will be screened independently by several reviewers (LMcC, QA, QL, EW, GRL, RC, and MV) and irrelevant studies will be removed. All titles and abstracts will be double-screened. Full-text articles of studies identified as potentially relevant for inclusion will subsequently be sought and screened by several reviewers (LMcC, QA, QL, EW, GRL, RC, MV, and KM) against the agreed set of criteria. Differences of opinion regarding inclusion or exclusion will be resolved by discussion and reaching a consensus or by a third reviewer. The results of the search and the study inclusion process will be reported in full in the final scoping review and presented both narratively and by use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram.

To determine the extent of research on co-creation experience (objective 1), details about co-creation more generally will first be extracted. This includes:

  • Study’s definition of co-creation and co-creation experience (if available).

  • The context or setting.

  • Data about the participants (number, type, and characteristics of co-creators’ involved).

  • Description of the co-creation process undertaken (including number of sessions, level of participation).

  • Purpose of co-creation.

  • Outcome of the co-created intervention, service, or product.

The key characteristics of psychological and emotional experience including positive and negative components (objective 2) will be extracted.

The psychological theory underpinning the co-creation experience identified by the authors of the studies (objective 3) will be recorded.

Information about the technology or tools that had an impact on the co-creation experience (objective 4) will be extracted.

Additional descriptive information such as discipline and date of publication will also be extracted.

The above-extracted information will be entered into an Excel spreadsheet developed by the authors. This data extraction Excel spreadsheet may be modified and revised as necessary during the process of extracting data from the included evidence sources to ensure that key findings relevant to the review question are addressed.

Quality assessment

There exists debate as to whether a scoping review should contain an assessment of study quality [26]. A quality assessment component will be included in this review in relation to the sufficiency of reporting the process of co-creating an intervention, service, or product. This tool (see Table 3) has been adapted from Leask et al.’s [4] ‘checklist for reporting intervention co-creation’ and Eyles et al.’s [27] amended version of a checklist for reporting non-pharmacological interventions. The reason for including this checklist is two-fold. Firstly, the scoping review may contain a variety of study designs and the focus is not solely on the outcomes, but rather on the process [27]. Secondly, as explained above, the concept of co-creation is used interchangeably with other similar overlapping concepts, such that some processes may be described as co-creation when they are in fact not (according to the definition used in this review) or vice versa. Therefore, by incorporating this checklist, it will become clearer as to the type or extent of co-creation processes that were implemented and whether they were clearly reported within each individual source of empirical evidence. However, given that a scoping review aims to present an overview of the extant literature on a particular topic without synthesis from individual studies, no study will be excluded on the basis of the quality of reporting co-created interventions.

Table 3 Checklist for sufficiently reporting co-created intervention, service, or product
Full size table

Strategy for data analysis

The PRISMA-ScR will be used to guide the reporting of the scoping review [28]. Whilst, the synthesis of the results from included sources of evidence is more appropriately done with a systematic review, the analysis of data in scoping reviews is generally descriptive in nature [29]. A narrative summary of extracted data will be produced along with the tabulated and/or charted results described in relation to the review question and objectives. Descriptive techniques, such as basic coding of data to particular categories, are recommended as a useful approach when the purpose is to identify concepts or key characteristics related to the concept [20]. Data will be analysed using the well-established method of thematic analysis [30]. This method is characterised by identifying and reporting recurring themes within the data and is a suitable analytic method because it allows for patterns of experience to be recorded, such as understanding adults’ experiences of participating in co-creation. We intend to extract relevant co-creation experience data from the result sections of articles, including verbatim participant quotations. For quantitative data, such as questionnaires, we will attempt to extract the item statements and code them alongside the qualitative data.

Discussion

The purpose of this scoping review is to uncover the breadth of existing empirical research on co-creation experience with a focus on emotional aspects and from a psychological perspective. An increased understanding of the role of experiences of participating in co-creation processes may help to inform the development and use of co-creation processes and lead to potential benefits for the co-creators’ and co-created outcome.

This scoping review has some limitations, which reflect the balance between conducting a wide search to discover the breadth of existing literature and the pragmatic constraints of conducting the review. This scoping review searches for published peer-reviewed work from SCOPUS and the Health CASCADE Co-creation Database. Other databases could be searched but for pragmatic reasons, these two databases were selected for their breadth and relevancy. Another limitation is that it was necessary to restrict the search terms for capturing ‘co-creation’ for the search in Scopus to maintain a manageable number of records retrieved to screen by the research team. However, authors may use different terms or descriptions. For instance, variations of terms like co-creation, co-design, and co-production, whether written with a dash or space can affect the number of articles retrieved. Boundaries on the search terms relating to experience were also formed, for example, specific emotions were not included in the search string, due to the large range of possible emotions that can be experienced, which would make the search unwieldy. We also have not used any of the advanced search features of the databases, such as proximity searching, which could potentially improve the specificity.

A strength of this review is the comprehensive snowballing search strategy to capture additional relevant papers. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and to scientific conferences. The plan for dissemination includes digital science communication platforms and presentations.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

AI:

Artificial intelligence

PRISMA-P:

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols

PRISMA-ScR:

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis–extension for scoping reviews

References

  1. Agnello DM, Loisel QEA, An Q, et al. Establishing a health CASCADE–curated open-access database to consolidate knowledge about co-creation: novel artificial intelligence–assisted methodology based on systematic reviews. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25(1): e45059. https://doi.org/10.2196/45059.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. von Heimburg D, Cluley V. Advancing complexity-informed health promotion: a scoping review to link health promotion and co-creation. Health Promot Int. 2020;36(2):581–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sherriff S, Miller H, Tong A, Williamson A, Muthayya S, Sally R, et al. Building trust and sharing power for co-creation in Aboriginal health research: a stakeholder interview study. Evid Policy J Res Debate Pract. 2019.

  4. Leask CF, Sandlund M, Skelton DA, Altenburg TM, Cardon G, Chinapaw MJM, et al. Framework, principles and recommendations for utilising participatory methodologies in the co-creation and evaluation of public health interventions. Res Involv Engagem. 2019;5(1):2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Wright MT, Springett J, Kongats K. What is participatory health research? In: Wright MT, Kongats K, editors. Participatory Health Research. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018.

  6. Voorberg WH, Bekkers VJJM, Tummers LG. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Manag Rev. 2015;17(9):1333–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Torfing J, Sørensen E, Røiseland A. Transforming the public sector into an arena for co-creation: Barriers, drivers, benefits, and ways forward. Adm Soc. 2016;51(5):795–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Leclercq T, Hammedi W, Poncin I. Ten years of value cocreation: an integrative review. Rech Appl En Mark Engl Ed. 2016;31(3):26–60.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang P, Meng F, So KKF. Cocreation experience in peer-to-peer accommodations: Conceptualization and scale development. J Travel Res. 2021;60(6):1333–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Yi Y, Gong T. Customer value co-creation behavior: scale development and validation. J Bus Res. 2012;66(9):1279–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Partouche-Sebban J, Rezaee Vessal S, Bernhard F. When co-creation pays off: the effect of co-creation on well-being, work performance and team resilience. J Bus Ind Mark. 2021;37(8).

  12. Sharma S, Conduit J, Rao HS. Hedonic and eudaimonic well-being outcomes from co-creation roles: a study of vulnerable customers. J Serv Mark. 2017;31(4/5):397–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Leask CF, Sandlund M, Skelton DA, Chastin SF. Co-creating a tailored public health intervention to reduce older adults’ sedentary behaviour. Health Educ J. 2017;76(5):595–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. van Rooijen M, Lenzen S, Dalemans R, Beurskens A, Moser A. Stakeholder engagement from problem analysis to implementation strategies for a patient-reported experience measure in disability care: a qualitative study on the process and experiences. Health Expect. 2021;24(1):53–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dunn JR, Schweitzer ME. Feeling and believing: the influence of emotion on trust. J Personal Soc Psychol Manag Proc. 2005;88(5):736–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Waugh CE, Fredrickson BL. Nice to know you: positive emotions, self–other overlap, and complex understanding in the formation of a new relationship. J Posit Psychol. 2006;1(2):93–106.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Dong B, Evans KR, Zou S. The effects of customer participation in co-created service recovery. J Acad Mark Sci. 2008;36(1):123–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ramaswamy V. It’s about human experiences… and beyond, to co-creation. Ind Mark Manag. 2011;40(2):195–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ramaswamy V. Co-creation of value — towards an expanded paradigm of value creation. Mark Rev St Gallen. 2009;26(6):11–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020Oct;18(10):2119–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Halvorsrud K, Kucharska J, Adlington K, Rüdell K, Brown Hajdukova E, Nazroo J, et al. Identifying evidence of effectiveness in the co-creation of research: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the international healthcare literature. J Public Health. 2021;43(1):197–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tarnavsky-Eitan, A, Smolyansky E, Knaan-Harpaz I, Perets S. Connected Papers. 2020. https://www.connectedpapers.com/about. Accessed 26 May 2022.

  23. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Bailen NH, Green LM, Thompson RJ. Understanding emotion in adolescents: a review of emotional frequency, intensity, instability, and clarity. Emot Rev. 2019;11(1):63–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(4):371–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Eyles H, Jull A, Dobson R, Firestone R, Whittaker R, Te Morenga L, et al. Co-design of mHealth delivered interventions: a systematic review to assess key methods and processes. Curr Nutr Rep. 2016;5(3):160–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Aromataris E, Munn Z. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In: JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2020.

  30. Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis: a practical guide. 1st ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Health CASCADE consortium.

Funding

The PhD studies of Lauren McCaffrey are funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement n° 956501.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK

    Lauren McCaffrey, Bryan McCann, Sebastien François Martin Chastin, Quentin Loisel, Mira Vogelsang, Emily Whyte & Philippa Margaret Dall

  2. Faculty of Psychology, Education and Sport Sciences Blanquerna, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain

    Maria Giné-Garriga & Giuliana Raffaella Longworth

  3. Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

    Qingfan An

  4. Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Greet Cardon, Sebastien François Martin Chastin & Rabab Chrifou

  5. Department of Psychology and Methods, Jacobs University Bremen, Bremen, Germany

    Sonia Lippke

  6. Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Katrina Messiha

Authors
  1. Lauren McCaffrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bryan McCann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria Giné-Garriga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Qingfan An
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Greet Cardon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sebastien François Martin Chastin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rabab Chrifou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sonia Lippke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Quentin Loisel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Giuliana Raffaella Longworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Katrina Messiha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Mira Vogelsang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Emily Whyte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Philippa Margaret Dall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LMcC coordinated and conceived the study. LMcC, PMD, BMcC, and MGG have made substantive contributions to developing this protocol and the review question. LMcC, PMD, BMcC, MGG, QA, QL, EW, GRL, MV, RC, and KM jointly developed the search strategy. LMcC drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren McCaffrey.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McCaffrey, L., McCann, B., Giné-Garriga, M. et al. Adult co-creators’ emotional and psychological experiences of the co-creation process: a Health CASCADE scoping review protocol. Syst Rev 13, 231 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02643-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02643-9

Keywords

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053