Co-creation of new knowledge has the potential to speed up the discovery and application of new knowledge into practice. However, the progress of co-creation is hindered by a lack of definitional clarity and inconsistent use of terminology. The aim of this paper is to propose a new standardised definition of co-creation of new knowledge for health interventions based on the existing co-creation literature. The authors completed a systematic search of electronic databases and Google Scholar using 10 of the most frequently used co-creation-related keywords to identify relevant studies. Qualitative content analysis was performed, and two reviewers independently tested the categorisation of papers. Of the 6571 papers retrieved, 42 papers met the inclusion criteria. Examination of the current literature on co-creation demonstrated how the variability of co-creation-related terms can be reduced to four collaborative processes: co-ideation, co-design, co-implementation and co-evaluation. Based on these four processes, a new definition of co-creation of new knowledge for health interventions is proposed. The analysis revealed the need to address the conceptual ambiguity of the definition of “co-creation of new knowledge”. The proposed new definition may help to resolve the current definitional issues relating to co-creation, allowing researchers and policymakers to progress the development of co-creation of new knowledge in research and practice.

Background: Suicide may have disruptive and/or devastating effects on family, friends, and the broader community. Of late, increased interest from suicide researchers has given rise to an upsurge in research productivity addressing suicide bereavement and postvention. At this critical juncture, the establishment of an agenda will help guide the direction of future scholarly research in this field. Aims: To conduct an exhaustive systematic mapping review and bibliometric analysis of peer-reviewed suicide bereavement and postvention research published over the past 50 years. Method: A comprehensive and strategic search of electronic databases and web-based search engines for original research studies was conducted resulting in the identification of 443 articles. Results: Since 1965, the global research activities in the field of suicide bereavement and postvention is approximately 8.86 papers per year. There remains a lack of evaluation studies on the effects of interventions/programs with the majority of papers being explanatory in nature. Several areas of study within this field remain neglected. Limitations: While the search strategy was rigorous, potential limitations exist due to nonstandardized nomenclature and English language only inclusion, which inherently favors research from high-income countries. Conclusion: Suggested topics for a research agenda are proposed from the current limitations in the field.

Social workers frequently encounter those affected by suicide. However, the social work voice on suicide has been relatively absent from the literature. This scoping review aimed to map the contribution social work research has made to suicide prevention, intervention, and postvention. Two hundred and forty-one papers on suicide authored by social workers were identified. Results demonstrate that explanatory research remains the primary mode of scientific inquiry in suicide research undertaken by social workers, with fewer descriptive and control articles. There remains a dearth of social work research dedicated to suicide in indigenous populations, postvention knowledge, and suicide and stigma. Future social work research should pursue a greater contribution to the primary prevention literature by evaluating programs and interventions. Working with those who are suicidal or the bereaved by suicide is important for informing social work practice in this area.

Background: Governments and third-sector organizations (TSOs) require support to reduce suicide mortality through funding of suicide prevention services and innovative research. One way is for researchers to engage individuals and services in multisectoral collaborations, to collaboratively design, develop and test suicide prevention services and programmes. However, despite widespread support, to date, it remains unclear as to the extent to which stakeholders are being included in the research process, or if they are, how these partnerships occur in practice. To address this gap, the authors conducted a systematic review with the aim of identifying evidence of multisectoral collaborations within the field of suicide prevention, the types of stakeholders involved and their level of involvement. Methods: The authors conducted a strategic PRISMA-compliant search of five electronic databases to retrieve literature published between January 2008 and July 2021. Hand-searching of reference lists of key systematic reviews was also completed. Of the 7937 papers retrieved, 16 papers finally met the inclusion criteria. Because of data heterogeneity, no meta-analysis was performed; however, the methodological quality of the included studies was assessed. Results: Only one paper included engagement of stakeholders across the research cycle (co-ideation, co-design, co-implementation and co-evaluation). Most stakeholders were represented by citizens or communities, with only a small number of TSOs involved in multisectoral collaborations. Stakeholder level of involvement focused on the co-design or co-evaluation stage. Conclusion: This review revealed a lack of evidence of multisectoral collaborations being established between researchers and stakeholders in the field of suicide prevention research, even while such practice is being espoused in government policies and funding guidelines. Of the evidence that is available, there is a lack of quality studies documenting the collaborative research process. Also, results showed that the inclusion of co-researchers from communities or organizations is defined as co-creation, but further analysis revealed that collaboration was not consistent across the duration of projects. Researchers and practitioners should consider issues of power and equity in multisectoral collaborations and encourage increased engagement with TSOs, to rigorously research and evaluate suicide prevention services.

Background: In Australia, the collaborative involvement of stakeholders, especially those with lived experience in mental health and suicide prevention, has become important to government policy and practice at Federal and State levels. However, little is known about how governments translate this intention into frameworks of co-creation for policy, funding programs, service improvement, and research and evaluation. We investigated the extent to which publicly available government policies refer to collaborative practice using an established translation model. Methods: An exploratory directed and summative content analysis approach was used to analyse the contents of Federal (also known as Commonwealth), State and Territories policy documents on mental health and suicide prevention published in Australia between 2010 and 2021. The data was extracted, compared to an existing translation model, and summated to demonstrate the evidence of co-creation-related concepts between government and stakeholders. Results: 40 policy documents (nine at the Federal and 31 at the State and Territory level) were identified and included in the analysis. Only 63% of policy documents contained references to the concept of co-design. Six of the State policies contained references to the concept of co-production. Across all policy documents, there were no references to other concepts in the model adopted for this study, such as co-creation, co-ideation, co-implementation, and co-evaluation. Conclusion: Although the government at Federal, State and Territory levels appear to support collaborative practice through partnership and co-design, this study suggests a narrow approach to the theoretical model for co-creation at a policy level. Implications for both research and practice are discussed.