The Involvement of Service Users and People With Lived Experience in Mental Health Care Innovation Through Design: Systematic Review

Designing a Library of Lived Experience for Mental Health: integrated realist synthesis and experience-based co-design study in UK mental health services

OBJECTIVE

Living Library events involve people being trained as living 'Books', who then discuss aspects of their personal experiences in direct conversation with attendees, referred to as 'Readers'. This study sought to generate a realist programme theory and a theory-informed implementation guide for a Library of Lived Experience for Mental Health (LoLEM).

DESIGN

Integrated realist synthesis and experience-based co-design.

SETTING

Ten online workshops with participants based in the North of England.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-one participants with a combination of personal experience of using mental health services, caring for someone with mental health difficulties and/or working in mental health support roles.

RESULTS

Database searches identified 30 published and grey literature evidence sources which were integrated with data from 10 online co-design workshops conducted over 12 months. The analysis generated a programme theory comprising five context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations. Findings highlight how establishing psychological safety is foundational to productive Living Library events (CMO 1). For Readers, direct conversations humanise others' experiences (CMO 2) and provide the opportunity to flexibly explore new ways of living (CMO 3). Through participation in a Living Library, Books may experience personal empowerment (CMO 4), while the process of self-authoring and co-editing their story (CMO 5) can contribute to personal development. This programme theory informed the co-design of an implementation guide highlighting the importance of tailoring event design and participant support to the contexts in which LoLEM events are held.

CONCLUSIONS

The LoLEM has appeal across stakeholder groups and can be applied flexibly in a range of mental health-related settings. Implementation and evaluation are required to better understand the positive and negative impacts on Books and Readers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42022312789.

The Frequency of Design Studies Targeting People With Psychotic Symptoms and Features in Mental Health Care Innovation: Secondary Analysis of a Systematic Review

This study examined and reflected on the frequency of people with psychotic symptoms and features as the target population in design studies for mental health care innovation.

Co-producing digital mental health interventions: A systematic review

Objective

Smartphone apps (apps) are widely recognised as promising tools for improving access to mental healthcare. However, a key challenge is the development of digital interventions that are acceptable to end users. Co-production with providers and stakeholders is increasingly positioned as the gold standard for improving uptake, engagement, and healthcare outcomes. Nevertheless, clear guidance around the process of co-production is lacking. The objectives of this review were to: (i) present an overview of the methods and approaches to co-production when designing, producing, and evaluating digital mental health interventions; and (ii) explore the barriers and facilitators affecting co-production in this context.

Methods

A pre-registered (CRD42023414007) systematic review was completed in accordance with The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Five databases were searched. A co-produced bespoke quality appraisal tool was developed with an expert by experience to assess the quality of the co-production methods and approaches. A narrative synthesis was conducted.

Results

Twenty-six studies across 24 digital mental health interventions met inclusion criteria. App interventions were rarely co-produced with end users throughout all stages of design, development, and evaluation. Co-producing digital mental health interventions added value by creating culturally sensitive and acceptable interventions. Reported challenges included resource issues exacerbated by the digital nature of the intervention, variability across stakeholder suggestions, and power imbalances between stakeholders and researchers.

Conclusions

Variation in approaches to co-producing digital mental health interventions is evident, with inconsistencies between stakeholder groups involved, stage of involvement, stakeholders' roles and methods employed.