Practices to support co‐design processes: A case‐study of co‐designing a program for children with parents with a mental health problem in the Austrian region of Tyrol. (13th October 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zechmeister‐Koss, Ingrid; Aufhammer, Sandra; Bachler, Herbert; Bauer, Annette; Bechter, Philipp; Buchheim, Anna; Christiansen, Hanna; Fischer, Maria; Franz, Marianne; Fuchs, Martin; Goodyear, Melinda; Gruber, Nadja; Hofer, Alex; Hölzle, Laura; Juen, Evi; Papanthimou, Flora; Prokop, Mathias; Paul, Jean Lillian
• Is Part Of: International journal of mental health nursing. Volume 32:Number 1(2023)
• Page Start: 223
• Page End: 235
• Publication Date: 2022-10-13
• Subjects: children of parents with a mental health problem -- co‐design -- community‐academic partnership -- mental health services -- parental mental health; Psychiatric nursing -- Periodicals; 610.736805
• DOI: 10.1111/inm.13078
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1445-8330

Abstract

Abstract: 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.