A qualitative evaluation of a co‐design process involving young people at risk of suicide

Bibliographic Data

ID19505990
AuthorsMichelle Kehoe (0000-0001-7548-7114, Department of Occupational Therapy Monash University Clayton Australia, corresponding author), Rick Whitehead (Alfred Mental and Addiction Health Melbourne Australia), Kathleen de Boer (0000-0002-4271-4285, Centre for Mental Health and Brain Science Swinburne University Hawthorn Australia), Denny Meyer (0000-0002-9902-0858, Centre for Mental Health and Brain Science Swinburne University Hawthorn Australia), Liza Hopkins (0000-0003-3383-2818, Alfred Mental and Addiction Health Melbourne Australia), Maja Nedeljkovic (0000-0003-0963-0335, Centre for Mental Health and Brain Science Swinburne University Hawthorn Australia)
Year2024
Volume27
Issue1
Pagese13986-e13986
Publication date2024-02-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueHealth Expectations (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1369-6513 • E-ISSN: 1369-7625
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/hex.13986
PMID38343139
OpenAlexW4391752013
LanguageEN
Citations received7
References cited24

BACKGROUND: Co-design is becoming common practice in the development of mental health services, however, little is known about the experience of such practices, particularly when young people are involved. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to conduct a process evaluation of the co-design which was undertaken for the development of an intervention for youth and adolescents at risk of suicide. This paper briefly outlines the co-design process undertaken during a COVID-19 lockdown and then focuses on a qualitative evaluation of the experience of taking part in a co-design process. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The evaluation involved young consumers of a public youth mental health service, their carers/parents and service delivery staff who had taken part in the co-design process. METHOD: This study used follow-up semistructured interviews with the co-design participants to explore their experience of the co-design process. Inductive thematic analysis was used to draw out common themes from the qualitative data. RESULTS: It was found that despite the practical efforts of the project team to minimise known issues in co-design, challenges centred around perceptions regarding power imbalance, the need for extensive consultation and time constraints still arose. DISCUSSION: Despite these challenges, the study found that the co-design provided a human-centred, accessible and rewarding process for young people, parents and staff members, leaving them with the feeling that they had made a worthwhile contribution to the design of the new service, as well as contributing to changing practice in service design. CONCLUSION: With sensitivity and adaptation to usual practice, it is possible to include young people with suicidal ideation, their parents/carers and professional staff in a safe and effective co-design process. 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 co-design 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 this research

Environmental health · Mental health · Poison control · Psychiatry · Qualitative research · Sociology · Suicide prevention · Applied Psychology · Art Therapy and Mental Health · Computer Science · Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods · Medicine · Mental Health and Patient Involvement · Psychology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access