Background: Co‐design and associated terms are increasingly being used to facilitate values‐based approaches to health‐care improvement. It is messy and complex, involving diverse actors.Methods: We explore the notion that initiatives have outcomes other than initially planned is neither new nor novel but is overlooked when thinking about co‐design. We explore some of the unintended consequences and outline some optimal conditions that can mitigate challenges.Discussion: Although co‐design approaches are being applied in health care, questions remain regarding its ability to produce gains in health outcomes. Little is known about determining whether co‐design is the most suitable approach to achieve the given project goals, the levels of involvement required to realize the benefits of co‐design or the potential unintended consequences. There is a risk of further marginalizing or adding burden to under‐represented populations and/or over‐researched populations.Conclusion: Undertaking a co‐design approach without the optimal conditions for inclusive involvement by all may not result in an equal partnership or improve health or care quality outcomes. Co‐design requires on‐going reflective discussions and deliberative thinking to remove any power imbalances. However, without adequate resources, a focus on implementation and support from senior leaders, it is a tough ask to achieve.Patient or Public Contribution: This viewpoint article was written by two academics who have undertaken a significant amount of PPI and co‐design work with members of the public and patient's right across the health system. Our work guided the focus of this viewpoint as we reflected on our experiences.

The best interventions to address frailty among older adults have not yet been fully defined, and the diversity of interventions and outcome measures makes this process challenging. Consequently, there is a lack of guidance for clinicians and researchers regarding which interventions are most likely to help older persons remain robust and independent. This paper uses meta-analysis to assess effectiveness of primary care interventions for physical frailty among community-dwelling adults aged 60+ and provides an up-to-date synthesis of literature in this area. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and PEDro databases were searched, and RCTs, controlled pilot studies, or trials with similar study designs addressing frailty in the primary care setting among persons aged 60+ were chosen. Study data was abstracted following PRISMA guidelines, then meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model. 31 studies with a total of 4794 participants were analysed. Interventions using predominantly resistance-based exercise and nutrition supplementation seemed to improve frailty status versus control (RR = 0.62 (CI 0.48–0.79), I² = 0%). Exercise plus nutrition education also reduced frailty (RR = 0.69 (CI 0.58–0.82), I² = 0%). Exercise alone seemed effective in reducing frailty (RR = 0.63 (CI 0.47–0.84), I² = 0%) and improving physical performance (RR = 0.43 (CI 0.18–0.67), I² = 0%). Exercise alone also appeared superior to control in improving gait speed (SMD = 0.36 (CI 0.10–0.61, I² = 74%), leg strength (SMD = 0.61 (CI 0.09–1.13), I² = 87%), and grip strength (Mean Difference = 1.08 (CI 0.02–2.15), I² = 71%) though a high degree of heterogeneity was observed. Comprehensive geriatric assessment (RR = 0.77 (CI 0.64–0.93), I² = 0%) also seemed superior to control in reducing frailty. Exercise alone or with nutrition supplementation or education, and comprehensive geriatric assessment, may reduce physical frailty. Individual-level factors and health systems resource availability will likely determine configuration of future interventions.

Co-design as a participatory method aims to improve health service design and implementation. It is being used more frequently by researchers and practitioners in various health and social care settings. Co-design has the potential for achieving positive outcomes for the end users involved in the process; however, involvement of diverse ethnic minority population in the process remains limited. While the need to engage with diverse voices is identified, there is less information available on how to achieve meaningful engagement with these groups. Ethnic minorities are super-diverse population and the diversity between and within these groups need consideration for optimising their participation in co-design. Based on our experience of working with diverse ethnic minority groups towards the co-design of consumer engagement strategies to improve patient safety in cancer services as part of the two nationally-funded research projects in Australia, we outline reflections and practical techniques to optimise co-design with people from diverse ethnic backgrounds. We identify three key aspects of the co-design process pertinent to the involvement of this population; 1) starting at the pre-commencement stage to ensure diverse, seldom heard consumers are invited to and included in co-design work, 2) considering logistics and adequate resources to provide appropriate support to address needs before, during and beyond the co-design process, and 3) supporting and enabling a diversity of contributions via the co-design process.

Objective: Public and patient involvement is increasingly embedded as a core activity in research funding calls and best practice guidelines. However, there is recognition of the challenges that prevail to achieve genuine and equitable forms of engagement. Our objective was to identify the mechanisms and resources that enable the reciprocal involvement of seldom heard groups in health and social care research.Methods: A rapid realist review of the literature that included: (a) a systematic search of CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed and Open Grey (2007‐2017); (b) documents provided by expert panel members of relevant journals and grey literature. Six reference panels were undertaken with homeless, women's, transgender, disability and Traveller and Roma organizations to capture local insights. Data were extracted into a theory‐based grid linking context to behaviour change policy categories.Main results: From the review, 20 documents were identified and combined with the reference panel summaries. The expert panel reached consensus about 33 programme theories. These relate to environmental and social planning (7); service provision (6); guidelines (4); fiscal measures (6); communication and marketing (4); and regulation and legislation (6).Conclusions: While there is growing evidence of the merits of undertaking PPI, this rarely extends to the meaningful involvement of seldom heard groups. The 33 programme theories agreed by the expert panel point to a variety of mechanisms and resources that need to be considered. Many of the programme theories identified point to the need for a radical shift in current practice to enable the reciprocal involvement of seldom heard groups.

Background: Although not an inevitable part of ageing, frailty is an increasingly common condition in older people. Frail older patients are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of hospitalisation, including deconditioning, immobility and loss of independence (Chong et al, J Am Med Dir Assoc 18:638.e7–638.e11, 2017). The ‘Systematic Approach to improving care for Frail older patients’ (SAFE) study co-designed, with public and patient representatives, quality improvement initiatives aimed at enhancing the delivery of care to frail older patients within an acute hospital setting. This paper describes quality improvement initiatives which resulted from a co-design process aiming to improve service delivery in the acute setting for frail older people. These improvement initiatives were aligned to five priority areas identified by patients and public representatives. Methods: The co-design work was supported by four pillars of effective and meaningful public and patient representative (PPR) involvement in health research (Bombard et al, Implement Sci 13:98, 2018; Black et al, J Health Serv Res Policy 23:158–67, 2018). These pillars were: research environment and receptive contexts; expectations and role clarity; support for participation and inclusive representation and; commitment to the value of co-learning involving institutional leadership. Results: Five priority areas were identified by the co-design team for targeted quality improvement initiatives: Collaboration along the integrated care continuum; continence care; improved mobility; access to food and hydration and improved patient information. These priority areas and the responding quality improvement initiatives are discussed in relation to patient-centred outcomes for enhanced care delivery for frail older people in an acute hospital setting. Conclusions: The co-design approach to quality improvement places patient-centred outcomes such as dignity, identity, respectful communication as well as independence as key drivers for implementation. Enhanced inter-personal communication was consistently emphasised by the co-design team and much of the quality improvement initiatives target more effective, respectful and clear communication between healthcare personnel and patients. Measurement and evaluation of these patient-centred outcomes, while challenging, should be prioritised in the implementation of quality improvement initiatives. Adequate resourcing and administrative commitment pose the greatest challenges to the sustainability of the interventions developed along the SAFE pathways. The inclusion of organisational leadership in the co-design and implementation teams is a critical factor in the success of interventions targeting service delivery and quality improvement.