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: Despite substantial investment by governments, the prevalence of mental health disorders in developed countries remains unchanged over the past 20 years. As 50% of mental health conditions present before 14 years of age, access to high-quality mental health care for children is crucial. Barriers to access identified by parents include high costs and long wait times, difficulty navigating the health system, and a lack of recognition of the existence and/or severity of the child's mental health disorder. Often neglected, but equally important, are clinician views about the barriers to and enablers of access to high-quality mental health care. We aimed to determine perspectives of Australian clinicians including child and adolescent psychiatrists, paediatricians, psychologists and general practitioners, on barriers and enablers within the current system and components of an optimal system. Methods: A total of 143 clinicians (approximately 35 each of child and adolescent psychiatrists, paediatricians, child psychologists and general practitioners) from Victoria and South Australia participated in semi-structured phone interviews between March 2018 and February 2019. Inductive content analysis was applied to address the broad study aims. Findings: Clinician-identified barriers included multi-dimensional family factors, service fragmentation, long wait times and inadequate training for paediatricians and general practitioners. Rural and regional locations provided additional challenges but a greater sense of collaboration resulting from the proximity of clinicians in rural areas, creating an opportunity to develop support networks. Suggestions for an optimal system included novel ways to improve access to child psychiatry expertise, training for paediatricians and general practitioners, and co-located multidisciplinary services. Conclusion: Within the current mental health system for children, structural, training and workforce barriers prevent optimal access to care. Clinicians identified many practical and systemic ideas to improve the system. Implementation and evaluation of effectiveness and cost effectiveness of these ideas is the next challenge for Australia's children's mental health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]