Rayner Kay Jin Tan

Importance: Co-creation is increasingly used in health research and programs to develop context-responsive solutions through collaboration among communities, researchers, and other key partners. However, inconsistent definitions and limited practical guidance may hinder the equitable and transparent conduct, evaluation, and reporting of co-creation. Objective: To develop a practical, consensus-based checklist to guide the planning, implementing, reporting and evaluation of co-creation in health, with particular attention to community engagement (especially those from lower- and middle-income countries) and power differentials. Evidence Review: We used a participatory, multistage consensus process comprising collaborative writing (December 2024 – March 2025), a half-day co-creation workshop at the 2025 STI & HIV World Congress in Montreal, Canada (July 2025), and a modified 2-round Delphi study (October-December 2025). We developed the initial checklist draft drawing on previous works, then refined through workshop feedback and Delphi ratings. Panelists rated item appropriateness using the 9-point RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM) method and provided qualitative feedback for iterative refinement. Findings: The initial writing team had 16 community members and researchers from ten countries. The workshop included 85 participants from 25 countries. The Delphi panel included 50 community members and researchers from 21 countries. The participatory process resulted in a 29-item checklist organized around two overarching principles—inclusive and meaningful engagement of co-creators and sharing power and ownership—and four implementation stages: planning, execution, output evaluation, and dissemination and sustainability, with cross-cutting process evaluation. In Round 1, all 29 statements had median ratings of 7–9 and reached agreement. Twenty-seven statements met the prespecified consensus threshold of at least 80% of panelists rating them 7–9; the checklist title and 1 item did not and were revised based on quantitative and qualitative feedback. The final checklist extends existing reporting-focused guidance to address governance, relational processes, power differentials, implementation, community ownership, and sustainability. Conclusions and Relevance: The 29-item checklist provides practical guidance for planning, conducting, evaluating, disseminating, and sustaining co-creation in health research and programs. By integrating community perspectives, this practical checklist may support more equitable and accountable co-creation across diverse settings. Future research should assess its usability and contribution to research quality and health outcomes.

Scientific conferences are important because they elevate researchers, provide an opportunity to meet leaders and funders, and build new collaborations. Conferences are particularly important for people who are often marginalized within scientific research related to gender, sexual identity, national origin, lived experience, and race/ethnicity. Nevertheless, many researchers who inhabit these marginalized identities or who are from low-resource settings face barriers to meaningfully participate in such scientific activities. As individuals who represent vulnerable patient groups (e.g. people living with HIV, people who use drugs, rare diseases, low-to-middle income country settings), and as academics who advocate for greater diversity and inclusivity, we believe that more remains to be done to ensure that scientific conferences remain equitable, represent diverse scientists and communities across all contexts, and are inclusive. This editorial reflects key issues that serve as barriers to diversity and inclusion at scientific conferences and proposes several solutions.

Health equity is commonly defined as ‘the state in which everyone has a fair and just opportunity to attain their highest level of health’ (Braveman et al., 2018). Health equity is a priority in gl...