Critique of Co-design Measurement in Global Health Research

This correspondence critiques a recent Viewpoint by Jenevieve Mannell and colleagues regarding the measurement of co-design in global health research. The original Viewpoint argued that traditional evaluation methods, such as counting attendees or satisfaction scores, fail to capture the equity, power-sharing, and knowledge democratization potential of co-design. However, this response contends that Mannell’s perspective overlooks established co-design theory and practice. It argues that by framing co-design under the broad umbrella of community-engaged research, the authors dilute the distinct procedural elements essential to true co-design. While the original authors acknowledged potential gaps in their examples, this critique emphasizes that categorizing co-design too broadly understates its fundamental limitations and unique characteristics. The correspondence highlights the need for more precise methodological approaches that respect the specific theoretical foundations of co-design, rather than merging it with wider community engagement strategies. This debate underscores ongoing challenges in defining and measuring collaborative research practices in global health contexts.