Search

Background: Co-design is an approach to engaging stakeholders in health and social system change that is rapidly gaining traction, yet there are also questions about the extent to which there is meaningful engagement of structurally vulnerable communities and whether co-design leads to lasting system change. The McMaster University Co-Design Hub with Vulnerable Populations Hub ('the Hub') is a three-year interdisciplinary project with the goal of facilitating partnerships, advancing methods of co-design with vulnerable populations, and mobilising knowledge. Aims and objectives: A developmental evaluation approach inspired by experience-based co-design was used to co-produce a theory of change to understand how the co-design process could be used to creatively co-design a co-design hub with structurally vulnerable populations. Methods: Twelve community stakeholders with experience participating in a co-design project were invited to participate in two online visioning events to co-develop the goals, priorities, and objectives of the Hub. Qualitative data were analysed using a thematic content analysis approach. Findings: A theory of change framework was co-developed that outlines a future vision for the Hub and strategies to achieve this, and a visual graphic is presented. Discussion and conclusions: Through critical reflection on the work of the Hub, we focus on the co-creative methods that were applied when co-designing the Hub's theory of change. Moreover, we illustrate how co-creative processes can be applied to embrace the complexity and vulnerability of all stakeholders and plan for system change with structurally vulnerable populations.

Introduction: The implementation of evidence-informed policies and practices across systems is a complex, multifaceted endeavor, often requiring the mobilization of multiple organizations from a range of contexts. In order to facilitate this process, policy makers, innovation developers and service deliverers are increasingly calling upon intermediaries to support implementation, yet relatively little is known about precisely how they contribute to implementation. This study examines the role of intermediaries supporting the implementation of evidence-informed policies and practices in the mental health and addictions systems of New Zealand, Ontario, Canada and Sweden. Methods: Using a comparative case study methodology and taking an integrated knowledge translation approach, we drew from established explanatory frameworks and implementation theory to address three questions: (1) Why were the intermediaries established? (2) How are intermediaries structured and what strategies do they use in systems to support the implementation of policy directions? and (3) What explains the lack of use of particular strategies? Data collection included three site visits, 49 key informant interviews and document analysis. Results: In each jurisdiction, a unique set of problems (e.g., negative events involving people with mental illness), policies (e.g., feedback on effectiveness of existing policies) and political events (e.g., changes in government) were coupled by a policy entrepreneur to bring intermediaries onto the decision agenda. While intermediaries varied greatly in their structure and characteristics, both the strategies they used and the strategies they didn't use were surprisingly similar. Specifically it was notable that none of the intermediaries used strategies that directly targeted the public, nor used audit and feedback. This emerged as the principle policy puzzle. Our analysis identified five reasons for these strategies not being employed: (1) their need to build/maintain healthy relationships with policy actors; (2) their need to build/maintain healthy relationships with service delivery system actors; (3) role differentiation with other system actors; (4) perceived lack of "fit" with the role of policy intermediaries; and (5) resource limitations that preclude intensive distributed (program-level) work. Conclusion: Policy makers and implementers must consider capacity to support implementation, and our study identifies how intermediaries can be developed and harnessed to support the implementation process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Designing within complex service systems implies navigating across a plurality of norms and beliefs that multiple stakeholder groups uphold, designers included. Transformational processes may be challenged by minimum, moderate, or extensive conflict depending on the centrality or compatibility of competing logics. This article reflects on how the complexity inherent in higher level institutional orders of society can support or inhibit the potential of co-design in complex systems, particularly in the public sector. Using the context of public mental healthcare transformation as a backdrop, we identified and reflected on four predominant logics: the logic of state; the logic of market; the logic of profession; and the logic of community. We then developed a set of tools to support reflexivity—the excel Logic Multiplicity Workbook and the Layers of Logics Map—that can be used to take project logics snapshots to represent the perceived strength of project stakeholder logics at the micro, meso, and macro levels and their centrality and compatibility. Three co-design project examples were used to retrospectively develop and refine these tools, and support the process of making explicit the role of competing logics in project challenges or triumphs. While we acknowledge that logics are often highly institutionalized and difficult to become aware of, we value as fundamental the creation of tools to better enable designers to consciously adopt adequate strategies to navigate this complexity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: Differences in care philosophies may influence transitions from child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) to adult mental health services (AMHS). Aims: To review literature about CAMHS and AMHS care philosophies and their influence on transitions. Method: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL databases were searched electronically using keywords related to transitions, youth and mental disorders. Content relating to philosophies of care was searched manually. Descriptive themes were extracted and the analysis suggested four hypotheses of how care philosophies influence transitions. Results: Of the 1897 identified articles, 12 met eligibility criteria. Findings reveal consistent differences in care philosophies between CAMHS (developmental approach, involving families and nurturing) and AMHS (clinical/diagnosis-focus, emphasis on client autonomy and individual responsibility). Conclusions: Better understanding of philosophical differences and collaborative planning and service delivery may foster shared approaches in CAMHS and AMHS to better meet the needs of transitioning youth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]