A Co-production Evaluation Tool Informed by Co-production Workshops for Use in Evidence Synthesis Contexts

Meena Khatwa; Vanessa Bennett; Rachael C Edwards; Lisa Richardson; Phuong Tu Nguyen; Sajid Saleem; Sylvia Chaires; Alison O'Mara-Eves; Dylan Kneale

doi:10.1002/cesm.70065

A Co-production Evaluation Tool Informed by Co-production Workshops for Use in Evidence Synthesis Contexts

Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2026 Jan 7;4(1):e70065. doi: 10.1002/cesm.70065. eCollection 2026 Jan.

Authors

Meena Khatwa¹, Vanessa Bennett², Rachael C Edwards¹, Lisa Richardson², Phuong Tu Nguyen², Sajid Saleem², Sylvia Chaires², Alison O'Mara-Eves¹, Dylan Kneale¹

Affiliations

¹ EPPI Centre, UCL Social Research Institute University College London London UK.
² Co-production Collective, UCL Culture University College London London UK.

Abstract

Aim: We aimed to co-produce a tool for evaluating co-production within evidence syntheses.

Background: Participatory approaches are recommended to enhance the salience and quality of evidence syntheses, and there is an increasing onus on co-producing evidence synthesis. Co-production is a way of working where research generators, beneficiaries and other interest holders work in equal partnership and for mutual benefit.

Methods: To develop our approach, we: Examined selected existing tools and frameworks that could be useful in evaluating co-productionDeveloped an initial tool that was then modified through input from co-production workshopsPiloted the tool and evaluation approach in a project as part of research involving co-producing a logic model to support evidence syntheses.

Results: The existing tools guidance and resources we examined were deemed to be oriented towards supporting the conduct and reporting of co-production, rather than evaluating what happens and how. This provided a basis for co-producing a new tool. A new tool was developed that captures our perspectives on: positionality and expertise; motivations and expected benefits; clarity of role and expectations; project involvement and contributions; value and recognition; skills, knowledge, and personal growth; relationships and networking; comfort, support, and accessibility; and decision-making and power sharing. We reflected that the tool and process for administering the tool worked well, and we liked the process of collective sensemaking.

Conclusions: We believe that the tool (which we refer to as the STRAPS tool - Synthesising Through Reflection And Participatory Sense-making) could provide a useful resource and starting point to other review teams who wish to evaluate co-production in their reviews and encourage others to share their experiences with us.

Implications: Co-production enhances the quality of evidence syntheses. Use of the STRAPS tool can help reviewers unpack the process by which this happens using a standardised approach.