From: Strategies for enacting health policy codesign: a scoping review and direction for research
Positive reported outcomes | Reported challenges | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Article/case study | Knowledge of community needs | Community mobilization (equity) | Feasible policy options | Multi-sector alignment | Novel ideas, critical thinking | |
Banana (2015) [41] | x | x | x | x | Finding community and system individuals willing to commit social capital to being a codesigner and champion, dynamic relationships among community and government | |
Evans (2016) Case study 1 [19] | x | x | x | x | Emotionally taxing for citizen participants | |
Hagen (2018) [63] Case study 1 | x | x | x | x | x | Finding community members willing to commit social capital and participate in codesign framework, need for flexibility, resource intensive, skepticism and discomfort with ambiguity |
Hagen (2018) [63] Case study 2 | x | x | Slowness, skepticism from those used to traditional approaches to policy consultation | |||
Hagen (2018) [63] Case study 3 | x | x | x | Discomfort with ambiguity, cost and time needed for codesign, skepticism among those used to more traditional policy consultation | ||
Hagen (2018) [63] Case study 4 | x | x | Energy and resource intensive, skepticism among those used to traditional policy consultation, | |||
Hagen (2018) [63] Case study 5 | x | x | Energy and resource intensive, slowness and flexibility, prototyping complex situations is difficult | |||
Hagen (2018) [63] Case study 6 | x | x | Energy (not necessarily resource) intensive, need for flexibility, consistent need for engagement | |||
Hagen (2018) [63] Case study 7 | x | x | x | Energy and resource intensive, periods of slowness, consistent need for engagement, skepticism among those used to traditional policy consultation | ||
Holmes (2011) [43] Case study 1 | x | x | x | x | Energy and resource intensive, requires strong project management | |
Holmes (2012) Case study 5 | x | x | Energy and resource intensive, consistent need for engagement | |||
Llano-Arias (2015) [45] Case study 1 | x | Discomfort among politicians with increased community mobilization, policy implementation difficult | ||||
Llano-Arias (2015) [45] Case study 2 | x | x | _ | |||
Mullins (2021) [46] | x | x | Difficulty recruiting sufficient citizens, need for continuous engagement, consistently negotiating power differences | |||
Munoz-Erickson (2014) [47] | _ | |||||
van der Bijl-Brouwer (2016) [40] | x | x | Managing multiple stakeholder groups | |||
Bovaird (2012) Case study 2 [48] | x | x | _ | |||
Bovaird (2012) Case study 3 [48] | x | x | _ | |||
Bovaird (2007) [49] Case study 2 | x | x | x | Negotiating between professional and citizen roles | ||
Ostrom (1996) [50] | x | x | x | Supporting citizens to commit social capital to the project, good teamwork within public agencies, regular communication, time and resource intensive | ||
Marchal (2021) [51] | x | x | Those lower in political hierarchies may not feel empowered to speak up without the process intentionally facilitating a sense of safety | |||
Springs (2019) [52] | x | x | - | |||
Spaa (2022) [53] | x | x | - | |||
Richardson (2021) [54] | x | x | The time needed to meaningfully engage residents | |||
Young (2018) [55] | x | - | ||||
Bittle (2022) [56] | x | x | Time needed to build and maintain strong relationships. Ensuring participatory approaches engages residents outside of “the usual suspects” who tend to be highly engaged | |||
Lloyd-Williams (2021) [57] | x | x | This effort did not involve consumers/intended beneficiaries and the authors note that equitable solutions would benenfit from more consumer involvement | |||
Goodyear (2022) [58] | x | x | x | Even with codesign, implementation of new approaches will be challenging | ||
Owens (2022) [59] | x | x | x | The array of ideas considered by a codesign process may be limited by the self-selection of participants, i.e., those who are willing to join may already have biases | ||
FreeBairn (2017) [14] | x | x | ||||
Lazo-Porras (2020) [60] | x | x | The time and effort needed goes beyond traditionally accepted timeframes for policy development. Methods must balance scientific knowledge and community needs |