0202609100433

From STARDIT
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Methodological Research on Co-Production in Evidence Synthesis: A Mapping Review Description: Despite the recently established top 20 priorities for methodological research on co-production in evidence synthesis, the coverage and depth of existing research on these topics remain uncharacterized. This mapping review was conducted to build an evidence map, updating searches from a baseline scoping review across five databases, being MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo and Scopus, through December 2025, and supplementary searches in study registries. Two reviewers independently screened the first 25% of titles and abstracts, and after confirming strong interrater reliability, a single reviewer screened the remainder, escalating any uncertain records to full text. All full texts were screened dually. One reviewer extracted data, a second verified the extraction, and AI applications were used for quality assurance. Included studies were coded according to the 20 prioritized methodological research areas and the results visualized in an interactive map using EPPI-Mapper. The search yielded 18,947 unique records. Sixty-seven studies were included in the map, thirty-one from the baseline scoping review and thirty-six newly identified, and five relevant ongoing studies were identified. Included studies addressed sixteen priorities, while four topics lacked any methodological studies. The most frequently researched topics were the impact of co-production on the review team with fifteen studies, best practice standards with fourteen, general guidance with twelve, and capacity building with ten, while all other topics yielded fewer than ten studies. Patients were the most commonly addressed interest-holder group, targeted by 84% of studies, being 56 of 67, though typically alongside other groups such as health professionals, and 43% of studies, being 29 of 67, addressed patients, carers and the public exclusively. This mapping review provides the first systematic baseline of research addressing methodological priorities for co-production in evidence synthesis. Despite substantial growth, the literature remains skewed and largely descriptive, with priorities such as quality appraisal and conflicts of interest neglected. Because study counts overstate coverage, well-populated priorities also warrant scrutiny.
STARDIT ID: 0202609100433
Dates

State ongoing
Start 2026-09-09
Form updated 2026-09-10

Location
Global
Aims
Systematically map available evidence against the recently established top 20 priorities for methodological research on co-production in evidence synthesis
Delineate research clusters, being the prioritized topics around which the existing methodological research on co-production in evidence synthesis is concentrated, so that researchers can build on existing frameworks and avoid unnecessary duplication
Highlight critical gaps, being the prioritized topics for which no methodological research was identified, so that limited research resources target the most critical evidence gaps and future projects build directly upon previous findings
Provide a roadmap to inform future methodological research in this field
Systematically identify, analyze and map the published and ongoing methodological research on co-production across the top 20 prioritized topics
Aim of the public involvement, as stated in the GRIPP2 checklist. A member of the public co-produced this work to share and incorporate perspectives about co-production and involvement in evidence synthesis, specifically at planning, protocol writing, study selection and manuscript writing and reviewing
Keywords
co-production
involvement
evidence synthesis
mapping
methodological research
research priorities
mapping review
evidence gap map
interest-holder involvement
patient and public involvement
ACTIVE framework
GRIPP2
PRISMA-ScR
EPPI-Mapper
Cochrane Co-production Methods Group
meta-research
Category
research

Inputs

individual

Dominic Ledinger



Task: Conceptualization | Methodology | Formal Analysis | Investigation | Data Curation | Writing - Original Draft | Writing - Review and Editing | Visualization | Project Administration | Funding Acquisition | Extracted all data | Performed the initial allocation of studies to the top 20 prioritized topics | Refined the extraction form iteratively with a second reviewer during extraction of the first three studies
Declared interests: Board member of the Cochrane Co-production Methods Group


Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria. Corresponding author. The manuscript states that the PhD studentship of Dominic Ledinger is funded by the Lower Austrian Science Fund, project number FTI23-D-042.
individual

Alex Todhunter-Brown



Task: Conceptualization | Methodology | Investigation | Writing - Review and Editing | Supervision | Funding Acquisition | Led the prior scoping review on methods of engaging interest-holders in healthcare evidence syntheses on which this review builds
Declared interests: Board member of the Cochrane Co-production Methods Group | Co-convenor of the Cochrane Co-production Methods Group


Research Centre for Health (ReaCH), Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom.
individual

Camilla Neubauer-Bruckner



Task: Methodology | Investigation | Writing - Review and Editing
Declared interests: Declared no conflicts of interest


Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria.
individual

Amin Sharifan



Task: Methodology | Investigation | Writing - Review and Editing
Declared interests: Declared no conflicts of interest


Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria.
individual

Anna Mengl



Task: Methodology | Investigation | Writing - Review and Editing
Declared interests: Declared no conflicts of interest


Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria.
individual

Jack Nunn (link)



ID: 0000-0003-0316-3254
Task: Methodology | Investigation | Writing - Review and Editing
Declared interests: Board member of the Cochrane Co-production Methods Group | Director of the charity Science for All, which hosts the co-design of STARDIT


Director, Science For All, Melbourne, Australia.
individual

Susan Banda



Task: Methodology | Investigation | Writing - Review and Editing
Declared interests: Declared no conflicts of interest


Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria.
individual

Stella Goeschl



Task: Methodology | Investigation | Writing - Review and Editing
Declared interests: Declared no conflicts of interest


Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria.
individual

Christopher Cooper



Task: Methodology | Writing - Review and Editing
Declared interests: Declared no conflicts of interest


Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria, and independent researcher, London, United Kingdom.
individual

Gerald Gartlehner



Task: Conceptualization | Methodology | Writing - Review and Editing | Supervision | Funding Acquisition
Declared interests: Declared no conflicts of interest


Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria, and Center for Health Economics, Methods and Evidence Synthesis, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, United States of America.
individual

Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit



Task: Conceptualization | Methodology | Formal Analysis | Investigation | Writing - Review and Editing | Supervision | Funding Acquisition | Independently verified the completed data extraction forms for accuracy and comprehensiveness | Independently verified the allocation of studies to the top 20 prioritized topics | Refined the extraction form iteratively with the first reviewer during extraction of the first three studies
Declared interests: Board member of the Cochrane Co-production Methods Group


Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria.
individual
Stage: Plan methods, ACTIVE stage 2 | Write and publish protocol, ACTIVE stage 3 | Select studies, ACTIVE stage 6 | Write and publish review, ACTIVE stage 11 | Knowledge translation and impact, ACTIVE stage 12


Task: Co-produced and co-authored the study as a public contributor | Shared perspectives on plain language and inclusion criteria | Screened studies | Reviewed the protocol and the manuscript | Authored the implications for future research
Recruitment: International research networks were targeted to recruit a member of the public who possessed existing expertise in research methodology
Communication: Occasional online sessions | A dedicated introductory meeting | An open and blame-free communication channel
Reported enablers: Occasional online sessions, which mitigated the difficulty of coordinating across time zones | A dedicated introductory meeting, which was vital for setting clear roles and discussing expectations | An open and blame-free communication channel, which allowed the contributor to openly discuss capacity limits without guilt
Reported barriers: Coordinating meetings across vastly different time zones | Engaging a voluntary public contributor without study funding or formal remuneration made it challenging to align availability with a tight research timeline | Recruiting for meta-research is uniquely difficult due to its abstract nature | Operating without dedicated funding created an ethical dilemma, as distributing research tasks to an uncompensated volunteer under tight deadlines risked causing stress
Compensation: volunteer
Impact: Successfully shifted the focus and terminology of the protocol to make it more accessible to a lay audience | Provided critical contextual insights during the pilot and initial screening phases that resolved conflicting study selection decisions | Deepened the understanding of the topic within the research team | Fundamentally shaped how the team conceptualized the study content, influencing subsequent screening decisions and potentially preventing relevant studies from being overlooked | Shifted the content and focus of the discussion section | Directly shaped how involvement was reported within the manuscript


Involvement ranged from contributing, through influencing, to controlling, and that while the contributor did not lead project components, involvement moved well beyond passive information receiving. The manuscript states that the public contributor co-authored the study but does not state which of the named authors this was, so this contributor block is not linked to a name.
individual
Start: 2025-09-26
End 2025-11-27


Task: Updated the database searches


Described in the manuscript as an experienced information specialist. Not named in the source. Database searches were updated on 26 September 2025 for MEDLINE (Ovid) and on 27 November 2025 for CINAHL (Ebsco), Embase, PsycInfo and Scopus.
organisation

Cochrane Co-production Methods Group



Task: Provided advice to the review team throughout the project | Hosts the interactive evidence map


The interactive, searchable version of the map is to be hosted online by the Cochrane Co-production Methods Group. The manuscript also records the Cochrane Co-production Methods Group online catalog as one of the repositories searched.
group of individuals

Authors of the prior scoping review and the MuSE consortium



Task: Allowed the review team to use and update their search | Allowed the review team to use their included methodological research studies as the basis of this work


The prior scoping review concerned methods of engaging interest-holders in healthcare evidence syntheses and was led by Alex Todhunter-Brown. Records published before 2024 were carried forward from the included set of that scoping review rather than re-screened, and the review team relied on that team eligibility assessment.
other resources



Time of PhD studentship of Dominic Ledinger is funded by the Lower Austrian Science Fund under project number FTI23-D-042, and that there was no separate funding for this study.
Ethics approver

Outputs and impacts

publication/report/document
State: Prospective
Methodological Research on Co-Production in Evidence Synthesis: A Mapping Review



Manuscript prepared for the journal BMC Research Involvement and Engagement, recorded in the manuscript as version 3 with a word count of 5390 and an abstract word count of 349 excluding the plain language summary. Not published at the date this STARDIT report was created. The manuscript reports that the review provides the first systematic baseline of research addressing methodological priorities for co-production in evidence synthesis, and concludes that despite substantial growth the literature remains skewed and largely descriptive, with priorities such as quality appraisal and conflicts of interest neglected.
other
State: Prospective
Interactive, searchable evidence map of methodological research on co-production in evidence synthesis



Built using EPPI-Mapper. Allows users to dynamically filter studies by priority area, evidence synthesis type and interest-holder group. The manuscript states that the map will be permanently hosted and maintained on the Cochrane Co-production Methods Group website upon publication. The manuscript records the link to the map as a placeholder, so no URL is available at the date this STARDIT report was created. The manuscript recommends maintaining the map as a living resource so that it continues to reflect the current state of the evidence.
publication/report/document
State: Completed
Review protocol registered with the Open Science Framework



The review protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework. The manuscript records one deviation from the protocol, being that a separate formal pilot phase for data extraction was replaced by two reviewers iteratively refining the extraction form during extraction of the first three studies.
publication/report/document
State: Prospective
Supporting information containing ten appendices



Appendix A, PRISMA-ScR checklist. Appendix B, GRIPP2 checklist. Appendix C, list of prioritized topics for co-production in evidence synthesis. Appendix D, search strategy. Appendix E, included studies from the prior scoping review. Appendix F, data extraction form. Appendix G, list of ongoing studies. Appendix H, list of excluded studies. Appendix I, study characteristics and findings. Appendix J, list of tools, frameworks or guidance.

STARDIT report information

STARDIT report authors
Jack Nunn (link)
0000-0003-0316-3254
Created this STARDIT report from the manuscript version 3 and supporting information version 3 supplied by the author team

Free text