Evidence mapPaperPMID 42519583Full record

ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2026

PRODUCES+: Guidance for co-creation in public health informed by evidence and user experience.

Danielle Marie Agnello, Giuliana Raffaella Longworth, Maria Giné-Garriga, Sebastien Chastin, Dawn A Skelton, Calum F Leask

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Danielle Marie AgnelloSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Giuliana Raffaella LongworthSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Maria Giné-GarrigaDepartment of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Psychology, Education and Sport Sciences Blanquerna, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain.
Sebastien ChastinSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Dawn A SkeltonSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Calum F LeaskAberdeen City Health and Social Care Partnership, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Co-creationCo-designCo-productionEvaluationFrameworkGuidanceImplementationMethodMethodologyParticipatoryPublic health

Identifiers

PMID42519583
PMCPMC13382120

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.