Stephanie E Schouten, Hanneke Kip, T. Dekkers, J. Deenik, N. Beerlage-de Jong, Geke D. S. Ludden, S. Kelders
{"title":"精神卫生干预中涉及严重精神疾病患者的共同设计过程的最佳做法:定性多方法方法","authors":"Stephanie E Schouten, Hanneke Kip, T. Dekkers, J. Deenik, N. Beerlage-de Jong, Geke D. S. Ludden, S. Kelders","doi":"10.1080/24735132.2022.2145814","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The lack of adoption of eMental Health technologies by people with severe mental illness (SMI) might be explained by a mismatch between technology design and users’ skills, context and preferences. Co-design can optimize this fit, but populations labelled as ‘vulnerable’ are often excluded or misrepresented. The goal of this study is to gain insight into best-practices for co-design with people with SMI. A qualitative, multi-method approach was used, consisting of a systematic scoping review of 21 included studies, 25 co-design expert surveys and six participant interviews. The results delivered 23 best-practices divided into four overarching aspects of co-design, namely: (1) activities to carry out before the start of a co-design study; (2) fruitful collaboration of the co-design team; (3) bespoke approach within co-design to accommodate the skills and abilities of SMI participants; and (4) mitigation of challenges surrounding power balance. The best-practices may help researchers and designers offer the SMI population a more specialized approach for co-design, which can cause the innovative output of eMH projects to be more effective and better adopted. Throughout the co-design process, more attention should be paid to the personal and clinical benefits of participation for the participants themselves.","PeriodicalId":92348,"journal":{"name":"Design for health (Abingdon, England)","volume":"46 1","pages":"316 - 344"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Best-practices for co-design processes involving people with severe mental illness for eMental health interventions: a qualitative multi-method approach\",\"authors\":\"Stephanie E Schouten, Hanneke Kip, T. Dekkers, J. Deenik, N. Beerlage-de Jong, Geke D. S. Ludden, S. Kelders\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/24735132.2022.2145814\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The lack of adoption of eMental Health technologies by people with severe mental illness (SMI) might be explained by a mismatch between technology design and users’ skills, context and preferences. Co-design can optimize this fit, but populations labelled as ‘vulnerable’ are often excluded or misrepresented. The goal of this study is to gain insight into best-practices for co-design with people with SMI. A qualitative, multi-method approach was used, consisting of a systematic scoping review of 21 included studies, 25 co-design expert surveys and six participant interviews. The results delivered 23 best-practices divided into four overarching aspects of co-design, namely: (1) activities to carry out before the start of a co-design study; (2) fruitful collaboration of the co-design team; (3) bespoke approach within co-design to accommodate the skills and abilities of SMI participants; and (4) mitigation of challenges surrounding power balance. The best-practices may help researchers and designers offer the SMI population a more specialized approach for co-design, which can cause the innovative output of eMH projects to be more effective and better adopted. Throughout the co-design process, more attention should be paid to the personal and clinical benefits of participation for the participants themselves.\",\"PeriodicalId\":92348,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Design for health (Abingdon, England)\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"316 - 344\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Design for health (Abingdon, England)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/24735132.2022.2145814\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Design for health (Abingdon, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24735132.2022.2145814","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Best-practices for co-design processes involving people with severe mental illness for eMental health interventions: a qualitative multi-method approach
Abstract The lack of adoption of eMental Health technologies by people with severe mental illness (SMI) might be explained by a mismatch between technology design and users’ skills, context and preferences. Co-design can optimize this fit, but populations labelled as ‘vulnerable’ are often excluded or misrepresented. The goal of this study is to gain insight into best-practices for co-design with people with SMI. A qualitative, multi-method approach was used, consisting of a systematic scoping review of 21 included studies, 25 co-design expert surveys and six participant interviews. The results delivered 23 best-practices divided into four overarching aspects of co-design, namely: (1) activities to carry out before the start of a co-design study; (2) fruitful collaboration of the co-design team; (3) bespoke approach within co-design to accommodate the skills and abilities of SMI participants; and (4) mitigation of challenges surrounding power balance. The best-practices may help researchers and designers offer the SMI population a more specialized approach for co-design, which can cause the innovative output of eMH projects to be more effective and better adopted. Throughout the co-design process, more attention should be paid to the personal and clinical benefits of participation for the participants themselves.