Skip to main content

Table 6 Checklist for reporting intervention co-creation

From: Framework, principles and recommendations for utilising participatory methodologies in the co-creation and evaluation of public health interventions

Section Checklist Item Case 1
 How was the aim of the study framed? 1) Use each element of the PRODUCES framework (PRoblem, Objective, Design, (end-) Users, Co-creators, Evaluation and Scalability) Utilising PAAR (Design) to develop (Objective) and test (Evaluation), with academic researchers and older adults (Co-creators), a generalisable (Scalability) intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour (PRoblem) in community-dwelling older adults (end-Users).
 Explain the sampling procedure 2) Explain the criteria used for sampling Convenience sampling and maximum variation sampling. End-users were 65+ years of age, community-dwelling, able to ambulate independently, able to give informed consent, able to attend a minimum of 5 meetings.
3) In what settings did sampling occur? End-user co-creators were recruited from university older adult database
4) How many individuals engaged as co-creators (academic / non-academic stakeholders)? Four university researchers and 11 community-dwelling older adults
5) Describe the co-creators (demographics / groups / other characteristics of interest). Of the end-user co-creators, 11 participants (5 men), average age = 74 years. Average medications = 5.
 How was ownership manifested? 6) Explain the methods used to manifest ownership (for example, branding the group, identifying the rights and responsibilities of the group) Co-creators branded as GrandStand Research Group. Co-creators provided with t-shirts, lab books, bags and pens with GrandStand logo. All co-creators told of their right of equal status within the group and their responsibility to contribute their ideas.
 Procedure Components: 7) What level of participation was there from the co-creators? Academic researchers and end-users strove to have equal participation. All co-creators asked for their input on each discussion point.
8) How was the overall aim presented? Overall aim highlighted at the beginning of the process and beginning of each workshop.
9) How was the purpose of each meeting presented? Purpose of each meeting identified at the beginning of the meeting.
10) What were the rules and responsibilities of participation agreed upon? Individuals told of their right of equal status within the group and to contribute their ideas.
 Procedure Methods: 11) In which areas did the co-creators require up-skilling? End-users were up-skilled regarding behaviour change theory and research methods. Academic researchers were upskilled regarding older adults’ reasons and preferences for interrupting SB.
12) What previous evidence was reviewed, and how? Presentations of the context of older adults’ SB [93], behavioural assets which can be used to interrupt sedentary periods [94] and behaviour change theories.
13) If a prototype was developed, describe the prototype and the prototyping process Full intervention prototype created from several key components which were individually prototyped, tested by co-creators and then refined.
14) Describe the frequency and duration of meetings Meetings occurred every 10–14 days and lasted approximately 2 h.
15) Give examples of interactive techniques or methods used Scenarios (eg. where it may be easy / difficult to break sedentary behaviour);
Brainstorming (eg. how to best categorise older adults’ assets)
16) Give examples of fieldwork techniques or methods used Testing created prototypes with end-users not involved with the process.
17) Give examples of how iteration occurred during the process Prototypes were initially developed, tested externally and after discussions, refined and then tested again.
 Process 18) Explain how co-creator satisfaction and contribution evaluated (for example reporting on attendance rates, questionnaires, interviews). Retention rates measured (100% retention, 0% dropout).
How are results reported back to stakeholders and the public? Written reports were developed explaining the results of the process and findings were disseminated at national conferences.
 Outcome 19) Explain how the validity of the outcome and the process were evaluated (for example, face validation, member checking). Face validation and member checking occurred throughout, including each developed prototype component and a summary of the information gathered from the previous meeting.
20) Explain plans for formal testing of the effectiveness/scalability of the co-created outcome Plan to embed the intervention into a multi-centre RCT vs. a top-down, theory-driven intervention and standard care (control group) to assess the effectiveness of the intervention.
21) Explain outcome of evaluation (if tested) If step 20 is deployed, outcomes which will be measured will include: changes in sedentary time, changes in sedentary time fragmentation, participants’ experience of using the intervention and effect on function (noted as important by the end-user co-creators.
  1. SB Sedentary behaviour, RCT Randomised controlled trial