Accessibility Tools
Ideas of and issues in co-design and co-production including overcoming barriers.
Healthcare systems redesign and service improvement approaches are adopting participatory tools, techniques and mindsets. Participatory methods increasingly used in healthcare improvement coalesce around the concept of coproduction, and related practices of cocreation, codesign and coinnovation. These participatory methods have become the new Zeitgeist—the spirit of our times in quality improvement.
The rationale for this new spirit of participation relates to voice and engagement (those with lived experience should be engaged in processes of development, redesign and improvements), empowerment (engagement in codesign and coproduction has positive individual and societal benefits) and advancement (quality of life and other health outcomes and experiences of services for everyone involved should improve as a result). This paper introduces Mental Health Experience Co-design (MH ECO), a peer designed and led adapted form of Experience-based Co-design (EBCD) developed in Australia. MH ECO is said to facilitate empowerment, foster trust, develop autonomy, self-determination and choice for people living with mental illnesses and their carers, including staff at mental health services. Little information exists about the underlying mechanisms of change; the entities, processes and structures that underpin MH ECO and similar EBCD studies. To address this, we identified eight possible mechanisms from an assessment of the activities and outcomes of MH ECO and a review of existing published evaluations. The eight mechanisms, recognition, dialogue, cooperation, accountability, mobilisation, enactment, creativity and attainment, are discussed within an ’explanatory theoretical model of change’ that details these and ideal relational transitions that might be observed or not with MH ECO or other EBCD studies. We critically appraise the sociocultural and political movement in coproduction and draw on interdisciplinary theories from the humanities—narrative theory, dialogical ethics, cooperative and empowerment theory. The model advances theoretical thinking in coproduction beyond motivations and towards identifying underlying processes and entities that might impact on process and outcome.
Co-design in mental health is the work of equal stakeholders, including consumers, families/ carers, clinicians and mental health staff working together to identify a problem and then define a solution. Co-production involves consumers, families/ carers at every stage of the process, reinforcing the idea that the people who use the service are best placed to help produce it.
It is not possible to engage in robust co-production without also engaging in co-design. Planning, designing and producing frameworks, guidelines, benchmarks, policies, programs and services with people that have experiences of the issues or services means the ultimate solution is more likely to meet the needs of consumers and families/ carers users.
Mental Health Australia has produced a two-page document setting out the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in co-design – government agencies, consumers and carers and other key stakeholders – to effectively co-design mental health policies and programs. The document, which has been developed with input from National Mental Health Consumer and Carer Forum members and Mental Health Australia members, encourages behaviours and attitudes that are conducive to genuine co-design partnerships.
Co-design is essential for better mental health interventions by developing them in partnership with people with lived experience of mental health issues and the service providers that support them. But who is best to do it? When? And how do they do it safety for everyone involved, in a system that is already stretched? These the key questions that need our attention.
It is not uncommon for activities to be labelled as co-design, when they are really just consultations with service providers. For us, co-design involves providers being willing to relinquish and share power and authority with people who have lived experience so they can co-produce the system, services, products and experiences.
Co-design can be costly and time consuming, and comes with the risk of uncertainty, but as those who use it can attest, the outcomes are a significant improvement on old ways of working.
That is why we recently convened Better Together: Effective co-design in mental health. This virtual roundtable convened government and not-for-profit service providers to share their experiences and explore the potential for co-design. We facilitated the discussion: Tim, a Nous Principal who previously headed the Western Australian Mental Health Commission and who has lived experience of mental health issues, and Kirsty, a Nous Principal who specialises in co-design.
We started by hearing about the experiences of three non-government organisations – one a service provider and the other two being peak advocacy bodies – then the open discussion identified several factors to consider in undertaking co-design in mental health.
In this co-presented keynote, two researchers share their personal and professional reflections on the shifting sands of co-production in action. The discussion will centre around contrasting perspectives of the collaborative process, service user and service provider stereotypes within academia, how leaning into uncertainty is an essential component of co-production, and who really is the specialist when both parties consider themselves experts (spoiler alert: it’s both).
To illustrate the reality of co-production, the speakers will draw on the current initiative Piki, a co-produced mental health pilot for 18-25 year olds which is being evaluated by a team at the University of Otago. The speakers are part of this evaluation team and are first-time co-producers who have both at different stages been left perplexed by the process. They thought they couldn’t be more different, but working together on Piki, discovered hidden commonalities amongst the shifting sands. Come find out how and why.
The National Mental Health Consumer and Carer Forum and the National Primary Health Network Mental Health Lived Experience Engagement Network acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waters on which we work and live on across Australia. We recognise their continuing connection to land, waters, culture and community. We pay our respects to Elders past and present.
“A lived experience recognises the effects of ongoing negative historical impacts and or specific events on the social and emotional wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It encompasses the cultural, spiritual, physical, emotional and mental wellbeing of the individual, family or community.
“People with lived or living experience of suicide are those who have experienced suicidal thoughts, survived a suicide attempt, cared for someone through a suicidal crisis, been bereaved by suicide or having a loved one who has died by suicide, acknowledging that this experience is significantly different and takes into consideration Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples ways of understanding social and emotional wellbeing.” - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Lived Experience Centre
We welcome Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to this site and invite them to provide any feedback or items for inclusion.
We also recognise people with lived and living experience of mental ill-health and recovery and the experience of people who are carers, families, kin, or supporters.