Table 3 Terms and definitions used to describe approaches

Co-creation

6 out of 8

• “The joint creation of vital goals for patients through the process of sharing knowledge and values” (p.3) [28]

• Examples of co-creation given to explain their approach [29]

• “An interaction where actors jointly produce a mutually valued outcome based on assessments of the risks and benefits of proposed courses of action and decisions based on dialogue, access to information and transparency” (p.3) [41]

• “shifts the design process from the traditional “top-down” health model to an inductive paradigm of shared leadership allowing end-users to take control over the content of the activities, and be involved in their health management and decision-making relevant to their own health” (p.2) [37]

• “Close, intensive and equivalent collaboration between science, care practice and education in the development of innovative, evidence-based knowledge” (p.2) [43]

• “In co-creation through collaborative enquiry, student learners can become meaningful contributors to the planning and approval processes of programme and course content in developing a nursing curriculum responsive to population needs” (p.1) [36]

Co-design

2 out of 8

• Examples of co-design given to explain their approach [29]

• “Co-design methods have been variously defined, but, in this case, the ambition was to enable a detailed understanding of functionality of the learning needs of care home staff and modelling of a physical system to convert this into product ‘architecture’. Using an experience-based co-design process, the participants can be involved in all stages or simply offer an interview, but recognise their engagement as valuing the lived experience of receiving or delivering care” (p.3) [41]

Co-production

4 out of 4

• “the results of mutual engagement are commonly referred to as having been co-produced” (p.133) [17]

• “working together and recognising different forms of knowledge” (p.3) [38]

• “The Social Care Institute for Excellence [51] defines co-production as ‘people who use services and carers working with professionals in equal partnerships towards shared goals’” (p.164) [41]

• ““unsettling traditional relations between expert and public knowledge” (p. 145) [52] and disrupting the more conventional power asymmetry between researcher and those researched. As a methodology, this approach to research provides a democratising platform for the inclusion of multiple parties involved in the production of knowledge (university researchers, user/participant groups, community organizations, for example)” (p.3) [18]