Search

Introduction: Integrated care research often fails to adequately describe co-design methods. This article outlines the process, principles and tools to co-design an integrated health and social care Hub for families experiencing adversity. Research methods: The Child and Family Hub was co-designed in four stages: (1) partnership building and stakeholder engagement, (2) formative research, (3) persona development and (4) co-design workshops and consultations. Local families, community members and intersectoral practitioners were engaged at each stage. The co-design workshops employed a human-centred design process and were evaluated using the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PEET). Results: 121 family participants and 80 practitioners were engaged in the Hub’s codesign. The PEET highlighted the co-design team’s satisfaction achieved by community members working alongside practitioners to generate mutual learning. Resourcing was a key challenge. Discussion: Human-centred design offered a systematic process and tools for integrating formative evidence with lived and professional experience in the Hub’s codesign. Applying community engagement principles meant that a diverse range of stakeholders were engaged across all stages of the project which built trust in and local ownership of the Hub model. Conclusion: Co-design research with families experiencing adversity should attend to language, engagement methods, team composition and resourcing decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Improving mental health outcomes for children and young people has become a priority for policy makers in the developed world. In Australia, up to half of all children and adolescents meeting criteria for mental health disorders receive suboptimal levels of treatment (or no treatment at all) despite the availability of effective treatments. Children with complex mental health conditions are particularly at risk of inadequate treatment as optimal care requires coordination from medical, educational and social services. In Australia, clinicians including pediatricians, psychologists and child and adolescent psychiatrists deliver the bulk of mental health care for children with complex mental health conditions. We aimed to determine perspectives of these Australian clinicians on barriers and enablers within the current system and components of an optimal model of care. Methods: Inductive content analysis was used to analyse 30 semi-structured interviews with key clinicians managing the care of children with complex mental health conditions across Australia. Interviews were conducted using vignettes with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Autism as exemplars. Findings: Multiple barriers to optimal care exist at a systemic, clinician and family level. However, regional health systems provide an enabling environment from which metropolitan models could learn. Transitioning to adult services was highlighted as the most compromised area of care. Clinicians identified short (e.g. empowering parents to advocate for and deliver their child’s care, case conferencing with schools) and long term (e.g. co-locating disciplines to deliver care, workforce training) solutions. Conclusions: Whilst multiple barriers to optimal care for children with complex mental health conditions exist, clinicians identify several enablers including developing networks with other disciplines and empowering parents to advocate for and co-ordinate care. Systemic changes based on multidisciplinary, co-located and integrated care services should be developed as longer term solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]