Can digital technologies and artificial intelligence enhance co-creation in public health? A Health CASCADE needs assessment study and critical recommendations

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess digital technology usage in co-creation for public health, identify practitioners' technology needs and preferences, and determine key factors guiding technology choices. STUDY DESIGN: A structured consensus protocol was employed to engage experts with wide-ranging expertise who have applied co-creation in different areas. METHODS: First, a virtual workshop with 12 experts generated statements on the current use of digital tools and the desired features for co-creation. Next, an online survey gathered additional insights from 14 practitioners. Qualitative content analysis was then conducted to categorise 123 usage statements, 91 wish statements, and 25 choice-factor statements. Finally, a consensus event validated and refined the categorisations. RESULTS: Communication and data handling emerged as central technologies, reflecting the need to overcome language barriers, facilitate engagement, and analyse feedback. Practitioners consistently wished for improved affordability, intuitive interfaces, and inclusive functionalities to support diverse co-creator groups. Ethical and security considerations, including GDPR compliance, were also highlighted, emphasising the importance of trust and data protection. Factors influencing technology choices ranged from cost and ease of implementation to interoperability and overall process support, underscoring the demand for user-friendly, secure, and feature-rich tools. CONCLUSIONS: Digital technologies, including artificial intelligence, can significantly enhance co-creation in public health by promoting inclusivity, streamlining collaboration, and supporting evidence-based decision-making. Ensuring affordability, ethical integrity, and practical usability is essential for maximising impact and fostering equitable outcomes in public health co-creation efforts.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.