Setting the Stage | Mapping and Organizing Your Codesign | Conducting Your Codesign | Producing and Sharing Your Codesign Projects | Evaluating Your Codesign | Recommendations Based on Lessons Learned | About the ENSPIRE Study
For ENSPIRE, we invited 27 long-term care staff from 10 centers to develop tailored COVID-19 vaccination-promotion materials over several weeks. Codesigners worked in 5 teams, each with a shared racial/ethnic identity. They were also trained in nonconfrontational vaccine conversations to help promote the materials to their peers.4,5
The codesign process — including training, design workshops, and reviews — lasted 10 weeks.
ENSPIRE built on the following codesign approaches, adapting their methods to fit our needs, the communities we were partnering with, and our study goals:
Boot Camp Translation (BCT)6 is a successful community-based participatory research method for codesigning materials, communicating information, and promoting behavior change for health issues including hypertension, diabetes, colorectal cancer screening, chronic pain, and cardiovascular disease. BCT’s efficacy is likely due to an approach that involves:
LINCC (Learning to Integrate Neighborhoods and Clinical Care)7,8 was a project that used codesign to develop and implement a new primary care role: a lay staff person to connect patients with community resources. Patients were equal partners with clinic staff in designing this new primary care service. LINCC used a 4-day design event and subsequent 1-day “check and adjust” event a year later.
1 Kelly A. Schmidtke et al, “A Workshop to Co-design Messages that May Increase Uptake of Vaccines: A Case Study,” Vaccine, September 2022, p. 5407.
2 “Co-Designing with Kids with Complex Needs,” Inclusive Design Research Centre, co-design.inclusivedesign.ca/case-studies/co-designing-with-kids-with-complex-needs/, accessed September 27, 2024.
3 Nathaly Aya Pastrana et al, “Improving COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake: A Message Co-Design Process for a National mHealth Intervention in Colombia,” Global Health Action, August 29, 2023.
4 Sarah E. Brewer et al, “Engaging Communities in Preventing Human Papillomavirus-Related Cancers: Two Boot Camp Translations, Colorado, 2017–2018,” Preventing Chronic Disease, January 2, 2020.
5 “Talking about Vaccines: HEART Method,” Immunity Community, immunitycommunitywa.org/talking-about-vaccines/, accessed September 27, 2024.
6 Ned Norman et al. “Boot Camp Translation: A Method for Building a Community of Solution,” Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, May-June 2013.
7 “Partnering with Patients as Equals in Co-Designing Primary Care: Examples and Tools from the LINCC Project,” Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, 2017, kpwashingtonresearch.org/application/files/5615/5866/2635/LINCC_ParteringWithPatientsCareDesign_Final.pdf, accessed September 10, 2024.
8 “Community-Led Co-design Kit,” Inclusive Design Research Centre, co-design.inclusivedesign.ca/, accessed September 10, 2024.
ENSPIRE codesigners shared work setting, racial/ethnic identity, location
In our ENSPIRE project, we decided to frame our codesign teams around attributes we thought most important in designing promotional materials for COVID-19 boosters:
We focused on race/ethnicity because:
We used survey data and conversations with administrators to identify the racial/ethnic identities most represented among our partnering long-term care centers. We identified:
WASHINGTON | GEORGIA |
---|---|
Black/African American, African, Latino, Asian Pacific Islander, and white | Black/African American, Afro Caribbean, and white |
This would be our starting point for recruitment:
ENSPIRE’s project team included admin support, leadership, co-facilitators (staff and community), codesigners, and a communications production team.
ENSPIRE’s staff had deep experience collaborating with community partners, facilitating group work, understanding the public health topic, and training peers and partners. Some staff had experience doing codesign.
We were fortunate to have administrative support to provide a lot of behind-the-scenes technical and logistic support. These team members arranged incentive payments, conducted screening interviews, provided technical support, and generally kept the project going when an extra set of hands was needed.
We asked one staff person to be primarily responsible for leading the codesign portion of our study. This person worked with another colleague to develop early drafts of the curriculum, keep timelines and schedules, serve as a communications point person, and lead regular meetings with the facilitators of our codesign teams. This person was also primarily responsible for maintaining and distributing final versions of the curriculum to all facilitators.
Each codesign team had two facilitators:
All co-facilitator pairs shared racial/ethnic identity with their codesign team members. This was important, as we wanted codesigners to feel comfortable and confident talking openly with their fellow codesigners and their co-facilitators. We also valued the cultural expertise the co-facilitators would bring to codesign.
*The team in Washington that was Black/African American/African Immigrant was led by 3 co-facilitators: an African Immigrant researcher, an African American community-based co-facilitator, and an African Immigrant community-based co-facilitator.
Codesigners were all employed as staff in a long-term care center and living in Georgia or Washington state at the time of codesign. They were asked to attend weekly codesign meetings, complete several “homework” assignments, and take part in follow-up evaluation interviews after codesign. All codesigners on any given team shared racial/ethnic identity with each other and with their co-facilitators.
The communications production team included a team lead, a copy editor, a graphic designer, and a video editor. One communications staff member was assigned to each codesign team to attend select meetings and gather input and feedback from codesigners. The communications production staff worked as a team behind the scenes, as all 10 products created through codesign needed production support (writing, editing, design).
ENSPIRE decided to have co-facilitator pairs for each codesign team because we recognized that the process would benefit from:
Co-facilitator pairs would also allow for support and coverage if a facilitator became ill.
Our community-based co-facilitators needed a unique skillset, and finding people who fit each team was challenging. Here are some of the characteristics we were looking for in co-facilitators:
Our 10-week codesign timeline was determined by:
Our co-facilitators needed to be available for 12 weeks total:
We prioritized accommodating our codesigners' work schedules when we set meeting times and dates. Our co-facilitators had to be available at those same times. Even if they had full-time employment, they would continue to be available throughout our codesign period.
We cast our nets far and wide to identify and recruit good candidates for our community co-facilitators. This included reaching out to:
Once we had interested candidates, our staff facilitators interviewed their prospective co-facilitators.
See Conducting your codesign for information about payment and support.
ENSPIRE had an 8-month timeline for codesign, from start to finish
ENSPIRE was a large research project conducted with a robust staff.
Key timeframes:
Land Acknowledgment
Our Seattle offices sit on the occupied land of the Duwamish and by the shared waters of the Coast Salish people, who have been here thousands of years and remain. Learn about practicing land acknowledgment.