The recent global experience of COVID-19 has problematized the face-to-face co-design process and forced co-design researchers and practitioners to rethink the process of collaboration that typically takes place in a co-design workshop. This paper considers how we might continue to co-design when physical proximity is not possible. Recognising that technology has long played a role in co-design practice, we argue that to date, the technologically mediated experience of co-design has been largely based on the assumption of replicating the physical and embodied experience of the co-design workshop. Rather than accepting the deficit culture implied through the curtailing of much of the conventional face-to-face activities we associate with co-design, this paper reports on proactive research into novel possibilities for continuing collaborative research work through the concept of ‘low-contact co-design’. A series of proprietary visual models that explore a range of spatiotemporal conditions within which co-design practices can occur are presented. Opportunities for engaging with new communities, and in new processes are highlighted and a spatiotemporal framework for planning co-design processes is presented.

Co-design, the method of involving users, stakeholders, and practitioners in the process of design, may assist to improve the translation of health evidence into tangible and acceptable intervention prototypes. The primary objective of this review was to identify and describe co-design techniques used in nutrition research. The secondary objective was to identify associations between co-design techniques and intervention effectiveness. An integrative review was performed using the databases Emcare, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Google Scholar. Eligible studies included those that: (1) utilised participatory research or co-design techniques, (2) described development and/or evaluation of interventions aimed at improving dietary behaviours or nutrition, and (3) targeted community-dwelling adults aged ≥18 years. We identified 2587 studies in the initial search and included 22 eligible studies. There were 15 studies that utilised co-design techniques, with a strong focus on engagement of multiple stakeholder types and use of participatory research techniques. No study implemented a complete co-design process. Most studies (14/15) reporting outcomes reported positive health (maximum p < 0.001) or health behaviour outcomes attributed to the intervention; hence, associations between co-design techniques and effectiveness could not be determined. Currently published intervention studies have used participatory research approaches rather than co-design methods. Future research is required to explore the effectiveness of co-design nutrition interventions.

Objectives To identify, appraise and synthesise existing design evidence for inpatient stroke rehabilitation facilities; to identify impacts of these built environments on the outcomes and experiences of people recovering from stroke, their family/caregivers and staff. Design A convergent segregated review design was used to conduct a systematic review. Data sources Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched for articles published between January 2000 and November 2020. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies investigating the impact of the built environment of inpatient rehabilitation facilities on stroke survivors, their family/caregivers and/or staff. Data extraction and synthesis Two authors separately completed the title, abstract, full-text screening, data extraction and quality assessment. Extracted data were categorised according to the aspect of the built environment explored and the outcomes reported. These categories were used to structure a narrative synthesis of the results from all included studies. Results Twenty-four articles were included, most qualitative and exploratory. Half of the included articles investigated a particular aspect of the built environment, including environmental enrichment and communal areas (n=8), bedroom design (n=3) and therapy spaces (n=1), while the other half considered the environment in general. Findings related to one or more of the following outcome categories: (1) clinical outcomes, (2) patient activity, (3) patient well-being, (4) patient and/or staff safety and (5) clinical practice. Heterogeneous designs and variables of interest meant results could not be compared, but some repeated findings suggest that attractive and accessible communal areas are important for patient activity and well-being. Conclusions Stroke rehabilitation is a unique healthcare context where patient activity, practice and motivation are paramount. We found many evidence gaps that with more targeted research could better inform the design of rehabilitation spaces to optimise care. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020158006.

To date, there is a lack of evaluation frameworks to guide the planning and conducting of the evaluation of co-creation in public health. This study aims to identify and set the components of the PROSECO framework (PROcesS Evaluation framework for CO-creation) to support the evaluation of co-creation processes in public health interventions. A multi-step, iterative approach combining the outcomes of two scoping reviews, expert validation, and design refinement. The PROSECO framework was developed in three steps. Firstly, collecting results from two scoping reviews on process evaluation for co-creation and evaluation of co-creation methods. The scoping review results were analysed and refined by a selected group of experts and through a three-round anonymous survey. Based on those findings, the framework visualisation was developed and designed through multiple design iterations. The PROcesS Evaluation framework for CO-creation, called the PROSECO framework, was developed to assist researchers and stakeholders in evaluating a co-creation process. The framework comprises a list of 37 components grouped under the five dimensions of Delivery, Participation, Experiential, Context, and Impact. PROSECO is the first framework to offer a systematic approach to evaluating co-creation. By integrating a diverse set of evaluation components, encompassing delivery, participation, experiential, impact, and context, it offers a flexible and comprehensive approach to address the complex nature of co-creation.

BACKGROUND: Stroke inpatient rehabilitation is a complex process involving stroke survivors, staff, and family utilizing a common space for a shared purpose: to optimize recovery. This complex pathway is rarely fully described. Stroke care is ideally guided by Clinical Practice Guidelines, and the rehabilitation built environment should serve to optimize care delivery, patient and staff experience. We aimed to articulate the inpatient stroke rehabilitation process of care in a series of process maps, and to understand the degree to which current stroke clinical and building construction (ie, design) guidelines align to support inpatient stroke rehabilitation. METHODS: We used the Value-Focused Process Engineering methodology to create maps describing the events and activities that typically occur in the current stroke inpatient rehabilitation service model. These maps were completed through individual and group session consultations with stroke survivors, architects, policy makers, and clinical experts. We then determined which sections of the Australian Stroke Rehabilitation Guidelines and the Australasian Health Facility Design Guidelines could be aligned and applied to the process maps. RESULTS: We present a summary process map for stroke inpatient rehabilitation, alongside detailed process maps for 4 different phases of rehabilitation (admission, a normal weekday, a weekend day, and discharge) using Value-Focused Process Engineering notation. The integration of design and clinical guidelines with care pathway maps revealed where guidelines lack detail to be readily linked to current stroke inpatient care practice, providing an opportunity to design stroke inpatient rehabilitation spaces based on the activities occurring within them. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight gaps where clinical and design experts should work together to use guidelines to their full potential; and to improve the process of planning for future stroke rehabilitation units.