Co-creation in research, policy engagement and advocacy: Lessons and limits from two decades of practice at the African Population and Health Research Center
- 1International programs, African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC) Campus, Nairobi, Kenya
- 2Health Systems Strengthening Hub, Institute of Healthcare Management, Strathmore University, Nairobi, Kenya
- 3Nuffield Department of Women’s & Reproductive Health (NDWRH), University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom,
Abstract
Co-creation is widely advocated in global health research and inconsistently practiced. This paper offers a reflective, practice-based synthesis of two decades of co-created research, policy engagement and advocacy at the African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC).We define co-creation through four dimensions; shared agenda setting, joint knowledge production, power sharing, and community leadership and ownership. We distinguish it from consultation, stakeholder engagement and partnership, and assess each dimension on a graded scale. To this we add a second axis: the reach of co-creation across the research-to-policy-to-advocacy interface, and the condition of the transitions between its segments. Six cases spanning evidence generation, policy processes, capacity strengthening and rights-based advocacy are assessed against both axes. Three findings emerge. Co-creation in this institution’s practice is substantive where knowledge is produced and weak where authority is held. Agendas were substantively shared in four of six cases and financial resources in none. It fails at the transitions between research, policy engagement and advocacy rather than within them, at moments that were neither designed nor evaluated nor recorded. And the domains of co-creation differ systematically in the dimensions they can realize, with community leadership substantive only in rights-based advocacy. We draw practice guidance on governance, funding, community roles, transitions and assessment, and state what a single-institution insider synthesis cannot establish.
Related
- Research engagement of rare disease patient advocacy groups in Poland: between participation and constrained co-production.
- A global community of practice to improve public–private engagement in TB: the TBPPM Learning Network
- Shared reading and independent book engagement in early childhood: associations with the home literacy environment in a Turkish pediatric outpatient population
- From Awareness to Practice: Barriers and Facilitators to Saudi Men’s Engagement with Pelvic Floor Muscle Training as Conservative Rehabilitation—A Qualitative Study
- A novel, free regional conference model to increase interest and engagement of medical trainees in pediatrics and pediatric gastroenterology research
BibTeX
@article{otukpa2026cocreation,
title = {{Co-creation in research, policy engagement and advocacy: Lessons and limits from two decades of practice at the African Population and Health Research Center}},
author = {Emmanuel Oloche Otukpa and Abdhalah K. Ziraba and Luchuo Engelbert Bain},
journal = {PLOS Global Public Health},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.1371/journal.pgph.0007405},
url = {https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0007405},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Co-creation in research, policy engagement and advocacy: Lessons and limits from two decades of practice at the African Population and Health Research Center
AU - Emmanuel Oloche Otukpa
AU - Abdhalah K. Ziraba
AU - Luchuo Engelbert Bain
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/30
JO - PLOS Global Public Health
DO - 10.1371/journal.pgph.0007405
UR - https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0007405
AB - Co-creation is widely advocated in global health research and inconsistently practiced. This paper offers a reflective, practice-based synthesis of two decades of co-created research, policy engagement and advocacy at the African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC).We define co-creation through four dimensions; shared agenda setting, joint knowledge production, power sharing, and community leadership and ownership. We distinguish it from consultation, stakeholder engagement and partnership, and assess each dimension on a graded scale. To this we add a second axis: the reach of co-creation across the research-to-policy-to-advocacy interface, and the condition of the transitions between its segments. Six cases spanning evidence generation, policy processes, capacity strengthening and rights-based advocacy are assessed against both axes. Three findings emerge. Co-creation in this institution’s practice is substantive where knowledge is produced and weak where authority is held. Agendas were substantively shared in four of six cases and financial resources in none. It fails at the transitions between research, policy engagement and advocacy rather than within them, at moments that were neither designed nor evaluated nor recorded. And the domains of co-creation differ systematically in the dimensions they can realize, with community leadership substantive only in rights-based advocacy. We draw practice guidance on governance, funding, community roles, transitions and assessment, and state what a single-institution insider synthesis cannot establish.
SN - 2767-3375
ER -