# Co‐production in sleep research: A scoping review of current practices and future directions

## TL;DR

This paper reviews how co-production methods are currently used in sleep research and suggests ways to improve future studies.

## Contribution

The study provides a scoping review of co-production practices in sleep research and highlights opportunities for improvement.

## Key findings

- Most studies used consultation approaches rather than co-design teams for intervention development.
- Common limitations included small sample sizes and under-representative samples.
- Future research should integrate co-production methods from the study's conceptualization phase.

## Abstract

Sleep is essential for mental and physical health, and research in the field has substantially expanded over the past 50 years. Co‐production methodology has been increasingly used within health and social care research, and refers to collaboration between researchers, policy makers, community partners and wider stakeholders. The aim of this scoping review was to detail the use of co‐production methods within sleep research. A review of the existing literature was conducted using seven databases following PRISMA‐ScR guidelines. Search terms included objective and subjective sleep outcomes, and the use of co‐production research methodologies. Sixteen studies were included in the final review: 10 studies used solely qualitative co‐production methods to inform intervention design and development (sleep as a primary outcome [n = 5] and as a secondary outcome [n = 5]), and six studies used co‐production methodologies to establish sleep as a priority outcome for future research. Most studies used consultation approaches to design interventions (n = 8), instead of using co‐design teams (n = 2). Two studies focusing on intervention development recruiting participants from clinical populations with poor sleep, other studies recruited from those with other underlying conditions or a healthy population. The most common limitations of the included studies were small sample size, researcher driven topics/domains for the PAR components, under‐representative samples and COVID‐19 pressures. Future sleep research should consider the use of co‐production methodologies from the study conceptualisation, through to the design, development and implementation of research to further benefit the intended research population.