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.

The paper presents a systematic review and metasynthesis of findings from qualitative evaluations of community reentry programs. The programs sought to engage recently released adult prison inmates with either problematic drug use or a mental health disorder. Seven biomedical and social science databases, Cinahl, Pubmed, Scopus, Proquest, Medline, Sociological abstracts and Web of Science and publisher database Taylor and Francis were searched in 2016 resulting in 2373 potential papers. Abstract reviews left 140 papers of which 8 were included after detailed review. Major themes and subthemes were identified through grounded theory inductive analysis of results from the eight papers. Of the final eight papers the majority (6) were from the United States. In total, the papers covered 405 interviews and included 121 (30%) females and 284 (70%) males. Findings suggest that the interpersonal skills of case workers; access to social support and housing; and continuity of case worker relationships throughout the pre-release and post-release period are key social and structural factors in program success. Evaluation of community reentry programs requires qualitative data to contextualize statistical findings and identify social and structural factors that impact on reducing incarceration and improving participant health. These aspects of program efficacy have implications for reentry program development and staff training and broader social and health policy and services.

When a person goes missing, those left behind mourn an ambiguous loss where grief can be disenfranchised. Different to bereavement following death, hope figures into this experience as a missing person has the potential to return. This review explores hope for families of missing people. Lived experience of ambiguous loss was deconstructed to reveal responses punctuated by hope, which had practical and psychological implications for those learning to live with an unresolved absence. Future lines of enquiry must address the dearth of research exploring the role of hope, unresolved grief, and its clinical implications when a person is missing.

Qualitative research necessitates the representation of, and engagement with, people who the research is designed to assist. Disability research not only seeks to explore populations where lived experience of disability is distinct, it is also a field where researchers themselves have lived experience. This paper reflects on the methodological innovations between the researcher, their supervisory team and the co-created opportunities to collect qualitative experiences from participants with disabilities, acknowledging the researcher’s own disability. The purpose of the paper was to provide scope to explore the multiple provisions required to be inclusive of accessibility needs as a way to bring unique consumer perspectives to the research table. The paper demonstrates, through a narrative lens, how the research space is altered for people and researchers when disability is present; requiring ways to ensure inclusive research practices are responded to. Recommendations for future co-creation of research with disability are identified.

Background: Suicide is more prevalent among disadvantaged, discriminated, and marginalised people with the majority of global suicide deaths occurring in the low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This can be attributed to sociocultural contexts and exacerbated by access to limited resources and services that can assist with early identification, treatment, and support. Accurate information on the personal experiences of suicide is lacking, as many LMICs legislate that suicide is illegal. Methods: This study aims to review the qualitative literature to explore the experiences of suicide in LMICs from the first-person perspective. Following the PRISMA-2020 guidelines, the search for qualitative literature published between January 2010 and December 2021 was undertaken. A total number of 110 qualitative articles from 2569 primary studies met the inclusion criteria. Included records were appraised, extracted, and synthesised. Results: The results provide lived experience insight into suicide from those living in LMICs, including understanding variations of the causes of suicides, the impacts on others exposed to suicide, existing support systems, and prevention measures to reduce suicide among LMICs. The study offers a contemporary understanding of how people in LMIC experience suicide. Conclusions: The findings and recommendations are derived from the similarities and differences within the existing knowledge base that is dominated by evidence from high-income countries. Timely suggestions for future researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers are provided.

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.