Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Are codesigned programmes more difficult to implement? A qualitative study of staff perceptions on the implementation of a new youth mental health programme

Bibliographic Data

ID19505880
AuthorsMichelle Kehoe (0000-0001-7548-7114, Monash University and Alfred Health Melbourne Victoria Australia, corresponding author), Rick Whitehead (Alfred Health Melbourne Victoria Australia), Kathleen de Boer (0000-0002-4271-4285, Centre for Mental Health and Brain Science Swinburne University Melbourne Victoria Australia), Denny Meyer (0000-0002-9902-0858, Centre for Mental Health and Brain Science Swinburne University Melbourne Victoria Australia), Liza Hopkins (0000-0003-3383-2818, Alfred Health Melbourne Victoria Australia), Maja Nedeljkovic (0000-0003-0963-0335, Centre for Mental Health and Brain Science Swinburne University Melbourne Victoria Australia)
Year2024
Volume27
Issue1
Pagese13989-e13989
Publication date2024-02-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueHealth Expectations (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1369-6513 • E-ISSN: 1369-7625
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/hex.13989
PMID38367246
OpenAlexW4391895757
LanguageEN
Citations received5
References cited30

BACKGROUND: Codesigned interventions are becoming more common in health services and, in particular, in the design and development of mental health programmes and interventions. However, previous research has established that the transition from codesign to implementation can experience several challenges and that this transition process has received little research attention. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the experience of staff members charged with the implementation of a codesigned intervention for young people and adolescents at risk of suicide. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Five staff members involved in the implementation of the new codesigned programme took part in semi-structured interviews. METHOD: The study involved qualitative evaluation of staff experiences during the implementation of a new child and youth suicide intervention. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The analysis identified four themes of 'disconnect', 'operational challenges, 'service user' and 'being authentic'. 'Disconnect' captures the difficulties of implementing a codesigned programme which leads to 'operational challenges' in meeting broader expectations while ensuring the feasibility of the programme. The third theme, 'service user', captures the realisation that the young people accessing the new service were different to those involved in the codesign process. The final theme, 'being authentic', highlights how staff needed to be responsive and flexible while remaining true to the principles proposed in the codesign. DISCUSSION: This study yielded some valuable insights into the challenges around the implementation of a codesigned intervention, an under-researched area. The findings suggest that adaption of the design may be necessary, if it is not informed by implementation constraints, making it necessary for the implementation team to be well-briefed on the initial design and given plenty of time to make the necessary adjustments in a coproduction process. Limitations for the generalisation of the results include a small sample of staff and particular challenges that may be unique to this study. CONCLUSION: The present study highlights that for health services undertaking codesign approaches, appropriate time and resources need to be considered for the implementation phase of an initiative, to ensure that there is effective translation from design to implementation and that new codesigned services can be effective within operational constraints. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the young people with a lived-experience and their carers who participated in the codesign process and research evaluation component of this study. We also wish to thank the clinical staff, peer workers and family peer workers who participated in the evaluation

Business · Medical education · Mental health · Psychiatry · Psychological intervention · Qualitative research · Reflexivity · Sociology · Thematic analysis · Applied Psychology · Computer Science · Evaluation and Performance Assessment · Health Policy Implementation Science · Medicine · Mental Health and Patient Involvement · Nursing · Psychology

  • Applying implementation science to infectious disease emergency preparedness and response

    Open Access•John Øvretveit•Frontiers in Public Health•2025

  • Continuity Is Essential

    Open Access•Deirdre McGowan, Deirdre A McGowan et al.•Health Expectations•2025

  • Patient Engagement in Integrated Care

    Open Access•Marissa Bird, Nick Zonneveld et al.•Health Expectations•2025

  • Are codesigned programmes more difficult to implement? A qualitative study of staff perceptions on the implementation of a new youth mental health programme

    Open Access•Michelle Kehoe, Rick Whitehead et al.•Health Expectations•2024

  • A systematic review of the facilitators and barriers for the implementation of co-designed youth suicide and self-harm interventions

    Open Access•Kathleen de Boer, Liza Hopkins et al.•Children and Youth Services Review•2025

  • The sustainability of new programs and innovations

    Open Access•Shannon Wiltsey Stirman, John Kimberly et al.•Implementation Science•2012

  • Co-design of eHealth Interventions With Children and Young People

    Open Access•Hiran Thabrew, Theresa Fleming et al.•Frontiers in Psychiatry•2018

  • Implementation science

    Open Access•Mark S Bauer, JoAnn Kirchner•Psychiatry Research•2020

  • Self-harm and suicide in adolescents

    Open Access•Keith Hawton, Kate Saunders et al.•The Lancet•2012

  • Co-creation, co-design, co-production for public health – a perspective on definitions and distinctions

    Open Access•Carmen Vargas, Jill Whelan et al.•Public Health Research & Practice•2022

  • On the Brink of Genuinely Collaborative Care

    Open Access•Michael Larkin, Zoë V R Boden et al.•Qualitative Health Research•2015

  • Evaluating the role and effectiveness of co‐produced community‐based mental health interventions that aim to reduce suicide among adults

    Open Access•Claire Hanlon, David Mcilroy et al.•Health Expectations•2023

  • Are codesigned programmes more difficult to implement? A qualitative study of staff perceptions on the implementation of a new youth mental health programme

    Open Access•Michelle Kehoe, Rick Whitehead et al.•Health Expectations•2024

  • Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research

    Open Access•Monique Hennink, Bruno Van Swinderen et al.•Social Science & Medicine•2022

  • Provision of a Multidisciplinary Post-Suicidal, Community-Based Aftercare Program

    Open Access•Michelle Kehoe, Angela M Wright et al.•Community Mental Health Journal•2022

  • Successful Qualitative Research

    Virginia Braun•Successful Qualitative Research•2013

  • Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies

    Open Access•Kirsti Malterud, Volkert Dirk Siersma et al.•Qualitative Health Research•2016

  • Co-designing Services for Youth With Mental Health Issues

    Open Access•Gillian Mulvale, Sandra Moll et al.•International Journal of…•2019

Citations per year2.5
Citation span2024 - 2025 (2)
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae