TABLE 2.
Extraction schema
| Attribute | Description |
|---|---|
| Description of the studies | Author's name, year, country, study design, main aim, program/project name, duration of the study, setting description, and participant food stores |
| Principles that informed co‐creation | Theory, approach, or framework used to support the study design |
| Conception of “healthiness” of the food retail | Study's definition/strategies for the food retail healthiness (e.g., increase availability, prominent placement of healthier products, or a combination of variables) |
| Type of stakeholders | Stakeholders mentioned throughout the publication (e.g., research team, retailers, corporate owners, managers, etc.) |
| Reflection on the co‐creation process | Description of the benefits or barriers to use co‐creation to improve the healthiness of the food retail and its impact on the study outcomes |
| Reflection for future use of co‐creation | Recommendations for future application of co‐creation |
| Motivations to participate in a co‐created initiative |
Motivations for those participating in the study (e.g., intrinsic or extrinsic) Roberts et al's 55 typology was used to classify these motivations. This typology positions individual motivations to co‐create across three types of co‐creation efforts: (1) motivations to innovate, driven by intrinsic motives; (2) motivations to contribute to community innovation activities, driven by altruistic motives; and (3) motivations to collaborate directly with organizations, driven by opportunity or goal‐related motives |
| Motivations of researchers for the use of co‐creation | Clear statement on the underpinning motivation for the study (e.g., testing new strategy, contribute to knowledge) |
| Level of participation of stakeholders engaged in the study |
Time of participation from stakeholders throughout the co‐creation process (initiation, identification [consultation], definition, design, realization, and evaluation) 56 Level of participation was classified and interpreted using the following ranking adopted from service delivery and public administration engagement 57 , 58 : (1) passive, stakeholders considered just to implement or evaluate the study (2) active, consideration of the stakeholder input in the design, and realization of the study (3) very active, multiple interactions throughout the study |