TY - JOUR
T1 - Practices to support co-design processes
T2 - A case-study of co-designing a program for children with parents with a mental health problem in the Austrian region of Tyrol
AU - Zechmeister-Koss, Ingrid
AU - Aufhammer, Sandra
AU - Bachler, Herbert
AU - Bauer, Annette
AU - Bechter, Philipp
AU - Buchheim, Anna
AU - Christiansen, Hanna
AU - Fischer, Maria
AU - Franz, Marianne
AU - Fuchs, Martin
AU - Goodyear, Melinda
AU - Gruber, Nadja
AU - Hofer, Alex
AU - Hölzle, Laura
AU - Juen, Evi
AU - Papanthimou, Flora
AU - Prokop, Mathias
AU - Paul, Jean Lillian
N1 - Funding Information:
: The article was written as part of a 4‐year research project ‘The Village’ funded by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Health, Science and Research through the Open Innovation in Science Centre at the Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft GmbH, hosted at the Medical University of Innsbruck, with collaboration of Co‐Investigator institutions. The funders did not influence the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and played no role in writing the manuscript. Funding
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
PY - 2023/2
Y1 - 2023/2
N2 - Forms of collaborative knowledge production, such as community-academic partnerships (CAP), have been increasingly used in health care. However, instructions on how to deliver such processes are lacking. We aim to identify practice ingredients for one element within a CAP, a 6-month co-design process, during which 26 community- and 13 research-partners collaboratively designed an intervention programme for children whose parent have a mental illness. Using 22 published facilitating and hindering factors for CAP as the analytical framework, eight community-partners reflected on the activities which took place during the co-design process. From a qualitative content analysis of the data, we distilled essential practices for each CAP factor. Ten community- and eight research-partners revised the results and co-authored this article. We identified 36 practices across the 22 CAP facilitating or hindering factors. Most practices address more than one factor. Many practices relate to workshop design, facilitation methods, and relationship building. Most practices were identified for facilitating ‘trust among partners’, ‘shared visions, goals and/or missions’, ‘effective/frequent communication’, and ‘well-structured meetings’. Fewer practices were observed for ‘effective conflict resolution’, ‘positive community impact’ and for avoiding ‘excessive funding pressure/control struggles’ and ‘high burden of activities’. Co-designing a programme for mental healthcare is a challenging process that requires skills in process management and communication. We provide practice steps for delivering co-design activities. However, practitioners may have to adapt them to different cultural contexts. Further research is needed to analyse whether co-writing with community-partners results in a better research output and benefits for participants.
AB - Forms of collaborative knowledge production, such as community-academic partnerships (CAP), have been increasingly used in health care. However, instructions on how to deliver such processes are lacking. We aim to identify practice ingredients for one element within a CAP, a 6-month co-design process, during which 26 community- and 13 research-partners collaboratively designed an intervention programme for children whose parent have a mental illness. Using 22 published facilitating and hindering factors for CAP as the analytical framework, eight community-partners reflected on the activities which took place during the co-design process. From a qualitative content analysis of the data, we distilled essential practices for each CAP factor. Ten community- and eight research-partners revised the results and co-authored this article. We identified 36 practices across the 22 CAP facilitating or hindering factors. Most practices address more than one factor. Many practices relate to workshop design, facilitation methods, and relationship building. Most practices were identified for facilitating ‘trust among partners’, ‘shared visions, goals and/or missions’, ‘effective/frequent communication’, and ‘well-structured meetings’. Fewer practices were observed for ‘effective conflict resolution’, ‘positive community impact’ and for avoiding ‘excessive funding pressure/control struggles’ and ‘high burden of activities’. Co-designing a programme for mental healthcare is a challenging process that requires skills in process management and communication. We provide practice steps for delivering co-design activities. However, practitioners may have to adapt them to different cultural contexts. Further research is needed to analyse whether co-writing with community-partners results in a better research output and benefits for participants.
KW - children of parents with a mental health problem
KW - co-design
KW - community-academic partnership
KW - mental health services
KW - parental mental health
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85139661134&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/inm.13078
DO - 10.1111/inm.13078
M3 - Article
C2 - 36226745
AN - SCOPUS:85139661134
SN - 1445-8330
VL - 32
SP - 223
EP - 235
JO - International Journal of Mental Health Nursing
JF - International Journal of Mental Health Nursing
IS - 1
ER -