Youth Co-Creation for Health: Bringing the WHO/UNICEF Toolkit into PhD Research 

2pm-4pm, 1^st July, 2026 

In our latest session, PhD students and early-career researchers (ECRs) came together to explore Youth co-creation for health: a practical guide, which is the WHO/UNICEF/TDR toolkit created with young co-creators worldwide. This was a special session of the PhD Participatory Research Network, organised in collaboration with Social Engagement to Spur Health (SESH) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The session included a presentation, a panel discussion, a group activity, and a Q&A, all focused on one main question: what does meaningful youth co-creation look like in the context of a PhD? 

During this session, we welcomed PhD students and ECRs from King’s College London, Queen Mary University of London, Oxford Brookes, London School of Economics and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.  

Meet the speakers 

The session was introduced by Yusha, alongside a panel of four guests – including the three researchers involved in the development of the toolkit, as well as a guest speaker from the PhD Participatory Research Network: 

• Oluwakorede Adedeji is a DPhil student in Clinical Medicine at the University of Oxford, studying HIV drug resistance mutations. Korede is credited as a co-leader of the toolkit who led the development of the toolkit from start to finish. The toolkit was built on Korede’s work at a youth-led workshop at the 2024 International AIDS Conference, which led to a global effort under the WHO to define what meaningful youth co-creation should look like. 

• Martins O. Iyekekpolor works across health systems evaluation and participatory research, now a research fellow at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of London. He has worked on multiple co-creation projects centred on health, including UNICEF’s Human-Centred Design (HCD) research, the development of an HCD workbook for public health professionals in Nigeria, and support for HCD initiatives in other countries. 

• Yoshiko Sakuma is a trained physiotherapist with experience in both the UK and Japan, now a Research Fellow and PhD student at LSHTM’s International Centre for Evidence in Disability. Her work focuses on participatory and community-driven approaches to sexual and reproductive health among people with disabilities. She is currently leading a project on facilitators and barriers to cervical cancer screening among women with disabilities in Japan and the UK.  

• Emma Hayashibara is a PhD Candidate at Queen Mary University of London and is also the founder and co-organiser of the PhD Participatory Research Network. Emma’s work focuses on co-creating a new mental health assessment tool with and for neurodivergent young adults.  

What is co-creation? 

Korede opened with a presentation introducing the toolkit. He made a key point: over half of the world’s population is aged 30 or younger, and yet they are rarely invited to help shape the policies, programmes, and research that most affect them. Co-creation is meant to close that gap: it’s a participatory method in which young people work alongside researchers, practitioners, and others to shape every stage of a project, from the earliest ideas through to dissemination, with a deliberate plan to identify and address power imbalances along the way. 

Martins explained that just running a workshop with young people does not mean true co-creation. The toolkit makes a clear distinction between real collaboration and okenism. The key difference is whether young people help guide the project or are only responding to decisions made by the researcher. 

A phrase that came up often was “start where they are”, the idea that facilitators need to properly assess where young people are at and stay flexible in their methods, rather than importing a rigid process and expecting young people to fit in. We also stressed that this is not just about carving out space for young people to speak. It’s about creating an atmosphere where everyone in the room, regardless of age or professional background, is willing to be a learner, and where lived experience is treated as its own expertise, rather than an accessory to “real” research. 

On the practical side of making this normal in institutions, these ideas came up repeatedly: 

• Actually creating the space and welcoming young people into it, rather than assuming they’ll find their own way in. 

• Building a genuine support network around them, not leaving individual young people to navigate institutional processes alone. 

• Making room for mistakes, since co-creation is inherently a process of trial, correction, and improvement rather than something you get right the first time. 

• The “show and do” principle: rather than just describing an idea, get people physically doing something with it, so the concept becomes tangible instead of abstract. 

One thing to do before you start co-creating 

Each panellist was asked for one practical thing they’d do before beginning a co-creation project. The answers ended up capturing quite different angles on the same underlying idea: 

• Korede: Listen first. 

• Emma: let go of control and expectations, and take a step back to see what actually happens rather than steering too tightly. 

• Yoshiko: get young people involved as early as possible in the study, not once the design is already locked in. 

• Martins: build in safe ways to disagree. Disagreement needs to be possible without it turning into conflict, and that requires a particular mindset from everyone in the room, not just the young people. 

What’s feasible at PhD level? 

The discussion then turned to how to apply these principles when you’re an early-career researcher with limited time, funding, and expertise.  

Yoshiko observed that PhD students and ECRs occupy an “in-between” position: they are close enough in age and experience to bridge the gap between institutions and participants, but have limited authority to change institutional structures or research conventions. ECRs oftentimes transition between roles, sometimes as peers and at other times as facilitators, researchers, or institutional representatives. Deliberately adopting the appropriate role as needed is essential for effective co-creation. The primary barriers identified were lack of support and training, as well as limited time and funding. 

This discussion informed the breakout room activity, during which groups addressed three key questions. Our group reached the following conclusions: 

Where could young people be more actively involved in shaping research or academic work? 

• In qualitative research, young people’s involvement is often restricted to data provision, with limited participation in analysis (such as theme development in thematic analysis). Involving them in the analysis enables identification of the most relevant data from their perspective, rather than solely the researcher’s. 

• Data collection, particularly through peer-led or co-facilitated approaches where appropriate 

• Evaluation of the research process itself, reflecting on what worked and what could be improved 

• Proposal development and grant writing so young people are identifying priorities before projects begin. 

• Involving young people in recruitment strategies and the development of participant materials enhances the accessibility and engagement of studies for their peers. 

• Engaging young people in study design ensures that research questions and methodologies reflect their perspectives. 

What is one practical action PhD students or ECRs could take to make youth involvement more respectful, reciprocal, and useful? 

• Think reciprocally: what would the young person actually want out of this experience, and think outside the box about it.  

• Examples include providing professional certificates detailing research skills and workshop participation, explicitly recognising them as co-researchers, supporting their academic networking, and offering to serve as referees for their CVs 

• Alternatively, ask directly, “What would you like to gain from this project?” and provide concrete options to guide their response. 

• Schedule regular check-ins so young people can see how their contributions are influencing the project. 

• Maintain transparency regarding the practical constraints of a PhD or early-career project and clarify which decisions can be shared. 

• Create opportunities for ongoing feedback, allowing youth involvement to adapt as the project progresses. 

What support, resources, or learning points would help ECRs practise youth co-creation more effectively? 

• A support network, both official and unofficial, of people navigating the same challenges 

• Institution-specific directories outlining funding opportunities, key contacts, and case studies from within the institution. 

• Strong supervisor support and encouragement for participatory approaches 

• Advocate for clearer ethical guidance tailored to participatory and co-produced research. 

• Seek practical guidance on fairly recognising and compensating young co-researchers 

• Facilitate connections between ECRs and peer support networks that extend beyond individual institutions. 

• Advocate for increased flexibility in project timelines to accommodate the iterative processes inherent in participatory research. 

Martins recommended initiating co-creation early by conducting a brief priority-setting session with young people before finalizing the research design, ensuring the research reflects their needs. He also advocated for moving beyond consultation to provide experiential opportunities, such as leading a grant, writing a study, or conducting an interview. Additionally, he emphasized that co-creation should be included as a dedicated budget line item at the proposal stage. 

Lessons learned and reflections

By the end of the session, a few ideas stood out: 

• Youth should drive the priorities, not just respond to ones set for them. 

• Even within the constraints of a PhD, with limited funding and time, there are practical ways to incorporate more youth involvement. 

• Even with the structural limitations faced by PhD students, there is often more institutional support available than initially perceived. Leveraging institutional resources (such as developing a co-creation directory, forming groups, and establishing connections) can provide a realistic foundation for a support system for ECRs. 

The session ended with closing remarks from Joseph D Tucker, who reflected on how meaningful it was to have a collaborative space like this for ECRs to connect and share experiences.  

Q&A highlights 

Regarding constructive disagreement with young people: Martins suggested implementing safe, low-stakes mechanisms such as anonymous voting on sensitive topics. When a participant’s view diverges from the group’s direction, the manner of response is crucial. Framing feedback as “I hear what you’re saying, and I think we could also add this” maintains a collaborative rather than corrective environment. 

On balancing anonymity with recognition: it was noted that young people contribute substantively to research and should be acknowledged for their professional skill development, such as through certification. However, this creates a tension between maintaining confidentiality and providing credit. The consensus was to offer young people the choice to claim or display their involvement, rather than making this decision on their behalf. 

On what to prioritise in a toolkit for PhD students specifically: Korede’s advice was to push for more specificity in practical steps, such as establishing direct reporting lines and providing concrete guidance on engaging with supervisors, mentors, and the broader institution, rather than leaving these relationships to develop informally. 

Written by Zahra Yusuf, Queen Mary University of London