TY - JOUR
T1 - Exploring co-adaptation for public health interventions
T2 - insights from a rapid review and interviews
AU - de Boer, Janneke
AU - Longworth, Giuliana Raffaella
AU - Delfmann, Lea Rahel
AU - Belmon, Laura Shanna
AU - Vogelsang, Mira
AU - Erikowa-Orighoye, Oritseweyinmi
AU - An, Qingfan
AU - Deforche, Benedicte
AU - Cardon, Greet
AU - Verloigne, Maïté
AU - Altenburg, Teatske
AU - Giné-Garriga, Maria
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2025.
PY - 2025/12
Y1 - 2025/12
N2 - Background: Adapting co-creation research processes and/or public health interventions improves the fit between the intervention and population of interest, potentially resulting in more relevant and effective interventions. Mode 2 research approaches (e.g., co-creation, co-production, co-design, community-based participatory research, and participatory action research) can ensure that adaptations fit the socio-cultural and economic contexts. However, an overview of existing practices and how to co-adapt is lacking. This study aimed to provide an overview of the use of co-adaptation in co-creation processes and/or public health interventions. Methods: We conducted a rapid review search on the Health CASCADE co-creation database. Relevant peer-reviewed studies reporting on co-adaptation of public health interventions were identified. A call for case studies via social media and co-authors’ snowballing was issued to perform interviews with co-creation researchers gaining insights into how co-adaptation was applied from unpublished studies and practice. Interviews were analysed using template analysis. Results: Fourteen studies addressed various public health issues by co-adapting co-creation processes, intervention activities, communication platforms, monitoring strategies, training components, and materials’ language and tone. Most studies lacked detailed reporting on the co-adaptation process, though some provided information on group composition and number, duration, and methods applied. Two out of 14 studies used a framework (i.e., Intervention Mapping Adapt), seven described their adaptation procedure without naming a specific framework, and five did not report any procedures or frameworks. Five of seven case studies used adaptation frameworks (e.g., ADAPT guidance). Interviews provided insights into the co-adaptation process emphasising the importance of contextual fit, integrating prior knowledge, and logging adaptations. Conclusions: This study is the first introducing the concept of and exploring co-adaptation of co-creation processes and/or public health interventions. It provides details regarding adaptations made, whether and which frameworks were used, and procedures applied to adapt. The findings highlight the need for tailored frameworks for co-adaptation and better reporting of co-adaptation processes.
AB - Background: Adapting co-creation research processes and/or public health interventions improves the fit between the intervention and population of interest, potentially resulting in more relevant and effective interventions. Mode 2 research approaches (e.g., co-creation, co-production, co-design, community-based participatory research, and participatory action research) can ensure that adaptations fit the socio-cultural and economic contexts. However, an overview of existing practices and how to co-adapt is lacking. This study aimed to provide an overview of the use of co-adaptation in co-creation processes and/or public health interventions. Methods: We conducted a rapid review search on the Health CASCADE co-creation database. Relevant peer-reviewed studies reporting on co-adaptation of public health interventions were identified. A call for case studies via social media and co-authors’ snowballing was issued to perform interviews with co-creation researchers gaining insights into how co-adaptation was applied from unpublished studies and practice. Interviews were analysed using template analysis. Results: Fourteen studies addressed various public health issues by co-adapting co-creation processes, intervention activities, communication platforms, monitoring strategies, training components, and materials’ language and tone. Most studies lacked detailed reporting on the co-adaptation process, though some provided information on group composition and number, duration, and methods applied. Two out of 14 studies used a framework (i.e., Intervention Mapping Adapt), seven described their adaptation procedure without naming a specific framework, and five did not report any procedures or frameworks. Five of seven case studies used adaptation frameworks (e.g., ADAPT guidance). Interviews provided insights into the co-adaptation process emphasising the importance of contextual fit, integrating prior knowledge, and logging adaptations. Conclusions: This study is the first introducing the concept of and exploring co-adaptation of co-creation processes and/or public health interventions. It provides details regarding adaptations made, whether and which frameworks were used, and procedures applied to adapt. The findings highlight the need for tailored frameworks for co-adaptation and better reporting of co-adaptation processes.
KW - Co-creation
KW - Guidelines
KW - Health promotion
KW - Implementation
KW - Modification
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85218842748&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s12889-025-21544-7
DO - 10.1186/s12889-025-21544-7
M3 - Article
C2 - 39953479
AN - SCOPUS:85218842748
SN - 1471-2458
VL - 25
JO - BMC public health
JF - BMC public health
IS - 1
M1 - 614
ER -