Search

Background: Cocreation has the potential to engage people with lived and living experiences in the design and evaluation of health and social services. However, guidance is needed to better include people from equity‐deserving groups (EDGs), who are more likely to face barriers to participation, experience ongoing or historical harm, and benefit from accessible methods of engagement. Objective: The aim of this international forum (CoPro2022) was to advance a collective vision for equity‐based cocreation. Design: A participatory process of engagement in experiential colearning and arts‐based creative and reflective dialogue. Visual prototypes were created and synthesised to generate a collective vision for inclusive equity‐based cocreation. Setting and Participants: The Forum was held at the Gathering Place by the Grand River in Ohsweken, Ontario, Canada. A total of 48 participants attended the forum. They were purposely invited and have intersecting positionalities (21 academic experts, six experience experts, 10 trainees, and 11 members of EDGs) from nine countries (Bangladesh, Botswana, Canada, England, Italy, Norway, Scotland, Singapore, Sweden). CoPro2022 Activities: CoPro2022 was an immersive experience hosted on Indigenous land that encouraged continuous participant reflection on their own worldviews and those of others as participants openly discussed the challenges and opportunities with engaging EDGs in cocreation activities. Visual prototypes and descriptions created in small groups were informed by participants' reflections on the panel presentations at the Forum and their own experiences with equity‐based cocreation. Following the event, the authorship team inductively coded themes from the prototype descriptions and met to discuss the cross‐cutting themes. These informed the design of an illustrated collective vision for Equity Based Co‐Creation (EqCC). Results: Six prototypes were cocreated by each small group to illustrate their vision for EqCC. Within these, four cross‐cutting themes were identified: (i) go to where people are, (ii) nurture relationships and creativity, (iii) reflect, replenish and grow, (iv) and promote thriving and transformation. These four themes are captured in the Collective EqCC Vision to guide a new era of inclusive excellence in cocreation activities. Patient or Public Contribution: Service users, caregivers, and people with lived experience were involved in leading the design of the CoPro2022 and co‐led the event. This included activities at the event such as presenting, facilitating small and large group discussion, leading art‐based activities, and reflecting with the team on the lessons learned. People with lived experience were involved in the analysis and knowledge sharing from this event. Several members of the research team (students and researchers) also identified as members of EDGs and were invited to draw from their personal and academic knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsIn order to achieve successful operationalization of trauma‐informed care (TIC), TIC policies must include conceptual clarity regarding the definition of both trauma and TIC. Furthermore, TIC requires clear and cohesive policies that address operational factors such as clearly delineated roles of service providers, protocol for positive trauma screens, necessary financial infrastructure, and mechanisms of intersectoral collaboration.Additionally, policy procedures need to be considered for how TIC is provided at the program and service level as well as what TIC means at the organizational, system, and intersectoral level. Context: Increased recognition of the epidemiology of trauma and its impact on individuals within and across human service delivery systems has contributed to the development of trauma‐informed care (TIC). How TIC can be conceptualized and implemented, however, remains unclear. This study seeks to review and analyze the TIC literature from within and across systems of care and to generate a conceptual framework regarding TIC. Methods: Our study followed a critical interpretive synthesis methodology. We searched multiple databases (Campbell Collaboration, Econlit, Health Systems Evidence, Embase, ERIC, HealthSTAR, IPSA, JSTOR, Medline, PsychINFO, Social Sciences Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts and Web of Science),as well as relevant gray literature and information‐rich websites. We used a coding tool, adapted to the TIC literature, for data extraction. Findings: Electronic database searches yielded 2,439 results and after inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied, a purposive sample of 98 information‐rich articles was generated. Conceptual clarity and definitional understanding of TIC is lacking in the literature, which has led to poor operationalization of TIC. Additionally, infrastructural and ideological barriers, such as insufficient funding and service provider "buy‐in," have hindered TIC implementation. The resulting conceptual framework defines trauma and depicts critical elements of vertical TIC, including the bidirectional relationship between the trauma‐affected individual and the system, and horizontal TIC, which requires intersectoral collaboration, an established referral network, and standardized TIC language. Conclusions: Successful operationalization of TIC requires policies that address current gaps in systems arrangements, such as the lack of funding structures for TIC, and political factors, such as the role of policy legacies. The emergent conceptual framework acknowledges critical factors affecting operationalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on rapid developments and growing commitments to codesign as a tool for patient and public engagement in health research and service improvement, particularly with populations who face social and systemic barriers to accessing services. Topics include examines growing attention and uptake of codesign approaches and the potential for positive impact as there continue to be significant gaps and inconsistencies in evaluation.

Background: Deeply divided ideological positions challenge collaboration when engaging youth with mental disorders, caregivers and providers in mental health research. The integrative dynamics (ID) approach can restructure relationships and overcome 'us vs them' thinking. Objective: To assess the extent to which an experience‐based co‐design (EBCD) approach to patient and family engagement in mental health research aligned with ID processes. Methods: A retrospective case study of EBCD data in which transitional‐aged youth (n = 12), caregivers (n = 8) and providers (n = 10) co‐designed prototypes to improve transitions from child to adult services. Transcripts from focus groups and a co‐design event, co‐designed prototypes, the resulting model, evaluation interviews and author reflections were coded deductively based on core ID concepts, while allowing for emergent themes. Analysis was based on pattern matching. Triangulation across data sources, research team, and youth and caregiver reflections enhanced rigour. Findings: The EBCD focus group discussions of touchpoints in experiences aligned with ID processes of acknowledging the past, by revealing the perceived identity mythos of each group, and allowing expression of and working through emotional pain. These ID processes were briefly revisited in the co‐design event, where the focus was on the remaining ID processes: building cross‐cutting connections and reconfiguring relationships. The staged EBCD approach may facilitate ID, by working within one's own perspective prior to all perspectives working together in co‐design. Conclusion: Researchers can augment patient engagement approaches by applying ID principles with staged integration of groups to improve relations in mental health systems, and EBCD shows promise to operationalize this. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Codesign has the potential to transform health and other public services. To avoid unintentionally reinforcing existing inequities, better understanding is needed of how to facilitate involvement of vulnerable populations in acceptable, ethical and effective codesign. Objective: To explore citizens' involvement in codesigning public services for vulnerable groups, identify challenges and suggest improvements. Design: A modified case study approach. Pattern matching was used to compare reported challenges with a priori theoretical propositions. Setting and participants: A two‐day international symposium involved 28 practitioners, academics and service users from seven countries to reflect on challenges and to codesign improved processes for involving vulnerable populations. Intervention studied: Eight case studies working with vulnerable and disadvantaged populations in three countries. Results: We identified five shared challenges to meaningful, sustained participation of vulnerable populations: engagement; power differentials; health concerns; funding; and other economic/social circumstances. In response, a focus on relationships and flexibility is essential. We encourage codesign projects to enact a set of principles or heuristics rather than following pre‐specified steps. We identify a set of principles and tactics, relating to challenges outlined in our case studies, which may help in codesigning public services with vulnerable populations. Discussion and conclusions: Codesign facilitators must consider how meaningful engagement will be achieved and how power differentials will be managed when working with services for vulnerable populations. The need for flexibility and responsiveness to service user needs may challenge expectations about timelines and outcomes. User‐centred evaluations of codesigned public services are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although high quality mental health care for children and youth is a goal of many health systems, little is known about the dimensions of quality mental health care from users' perspectives. We engaged young people, caregivers and service providers to share experiences, which shed light on quality dimensions for youth mental health care. Methods: Using experience‐based co‐design, we collected qualitative data from young people aged 16‐24 with a mental disorder (n = 19), identified caregivers (n = 12) and service providers (n = 14) about their experiences with respect to youth mental health services. Experience data were collected using multiple approaches including interviews, a suite of online and smartphone applications (n = 22), and a co‐design event (n = 16) and analysed to extract touch points. These touch points were used to prioritize and co‐design a user‐driven prototype of a questionnaire to provide feedback to service providers. Findings: Young people, caregiver and service provider reports of service experiences were used to identify aspects of care quality at eight mental health service contact points: Access to mental health care; Transfer to/from hospital; Intake into hospital; Services provided; Assessment and treatment; Treatment environment; and Caregiver involvement in care. In some cases, low quality care was harmful to users and their caregivers. Young people co‐designed a prototype of a user‐driven feedback questionnaire to improve quality of service experiences that was supported by service providers and caregivers at the co‐design event. Conclusion: By using EBCD to capture in‐depth data regarding experiences of young people, their caregivers and service providers, study participants have begun to establish a baseline for acceptable quality of mental health care for young people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]