Back

Public Involvement in Complex Theorising: A coproduced logic model of the role of context in shaping child health

Kneale, D.; O'Mara-Eves, A.; Candy, B.; Cain, L.; Catchpole, J.; Chesworth, A.; Oliver, S.; Sutcliffe, K.; Hutchinson Pascal, N.; Thomas, J.

2025-03-11 public and global health
10.1101/2025.03.10.25323571 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionThere is increasing work towards drawing on theory, implementing co-production, and accounting for complexity within the production of systematic reviews for public health. In this paper, we report on the process of co-producing a theory, in this case a graphical articulation of theory in the form of a logic model, which describes how contextual factors influence childrens health. MethodsWe undertook a series of three online co-production workshops involving 18-20 participants in each, and worked with an advisory group of experts with professional and lived expertise. An online virtual whiteboard was used to support the identification of factors that contributed to poorer childhood health, explanations for these factors, and connections between different factors. ResultsWe initially focussed our work on childhood obesity. However, co-production was transformational in switching the focus of the logic model away from a narrow focus on Body Mass Index as a measure of obesity, to a more holistic theory of factors that shape childrens health, recognised as the intersection between healthy eating, physical activity and mental wellbeing. Theorising with a diverse range of co-producers helped us to recognise the stigmatising impacts that an exclusive focus on clinical measures of childrens health can have, and the way that a narrow clinical focus inhibits theorising the complexity and drivers of poorer health. ConclusionCo-production led to a switch in theorising away from narratives of childrens health that focus closely on personal responsibility, towards narratives that explore structural and contextual drivers of health. Patient or Public ContributionThe logic model was entirely driven by the contributions of researchers, those with lived experience (e.g. as parents and/or who have experienced poor health), and those with professional experience (e.g. as teachers) who worked together to co-produce the model. An advisory group composed of people with a similar range of expertise helped to shape the conduct of co-production and dissemination (including in the preparation of this manuscript).

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.