ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2026
PRODUCES+: Guidance for co-creation in public health informed by evidence and user experience.
Article in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Despite the growing popularity of co-creation to develop complex interventions, there is limited guidance on planning and implementing a co-creation process in public health. This study aims to critically review and update one such guidance, the PRODUCES framework, to develop a more comprehensive, user-friendly guide for public health researchers and practitioners. Study design: Evidence- and user-informed guideline development. Methods: A multi-method, evidence-informed approach was used to identify strengths, gaps, and areas for improvement. This included a snowballing review of peer-reviewed articles citing the PRODUCES framework, followed by in-depth interviews and a mixed-methods survey with lead authors identified through the review. Data from included studies, interviews, and survey responses were analysed thematically. Results: The search identified 96 studies, of which 21 were included. Four interviews and nine survey responses were obtained. Strengths included flexibility, clear foundational guidance, and practical applicability, while limitations related to clarity, overlapping stages, and terminology. Participants suggested strengthening implementation guidance and methods and highlighted the value of complementary frameworks. These findings informed the development of the PRODUCES+ guideline. Conclusions: Building on user input, the original framework, and contemporary co-creation literature, the PRODUCES+ Guideline provides an expanded, step-by-step resource for planning co-creation in public health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.