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

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}
引用次数: 8

摘要

重度精神疾病(SMI)患者缺乏采用心理健康技术的原因可能是技术设计与使用者的技能、环境和偏好不匹配。共同设计可以优化这种匹配,但被标记为“脆弱”的人群往往被排除在外或被歪曲。本研究的目的是深入了解与重度精神障碍患者共同设计的最佳实践。本研究采用了一种定性的、多方法的方法,包括对21项纳入研究、25项共同设计专家调查和6项参与者访谈的系统范围评估。结果提供了23个最佳实践,分为协同设计的四个总体方面,即:(1)协同设计研究开始前需要开展的活动;(2)协同设计团队合作成果丰硕;(3)协同设计中的定制方法,以适应SMI参与者的技能和能力;(4)缓解围绕权力平衡的挑战。最佳实践可以帮助研究人员和设计师为SMI人群提供更专业的协同设计方法,这可以使eMH项目的创新产出更有效,更好地被采用。在整个协同设计过程中,应更多地关注参与者自身参与的个人和临床利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信