Cited by 37Mental Health and Patient InvolvementDigital Mental Health InterventionsInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Best-practices for co-design processes involving people with severe mental illness for eMental health interventions: a qualitative multi-method approach.

Open access
Schouten, Stephanie E., Kip, Hanneke, Dekkers, Tessa, Deenik, Jeroen, Beerlage-de Jong, Nienke, Ludden, Geke D. S., Kelders, Saskia M.·2022·Design for Health

Abstract

The lack of adoption of eMental Health technologies by people with severe mental illness (SMI) might be explained by a mismatch between technology design and users’ skills, context and preferences. Co-design can optimize this fit, but populations labelled as ‘vulnerable’ are often excluded or misrepresented. The goal of this study is to gain insight into best-practices for co-design with people with SMI. A qualitative, multi-method approach was used, consisting of a systematic scoping review of 21 included studies, 25 co-design expert surveys and six participant interviews. The results delivered 23 best-practices divided into four overarching aspects of co-design, namely: (1) activities to carry out before the start of a co-design study; (2) fruitful collaboration of the co-design team; (3) bespoke approach within co-design to accommodate the skills and abilities of SMI participants; and (4) mitigation of challenges surrounding power balance. The best-practices may help researchers and designers offer the SMI population a more specialized approach for co-design, which can cause the innovative output of eMH projects to be more effective and better adopted. Throughout the co-design process, more attention should be paid to the personal and clinical benefits of participation for the participants themselves.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/24735132.2022.2145814

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Collaborative care planning approaches such as codesign and coproduction have become increasingly important in mental health intervention design and delivery and have been shown to improve service quality.

    “Collaborative care planning approaches, such as codesign and coproduction, have thereby become increasingly important in mental health intervention design and delivery, and have been shown to improve service quality (44–47).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schouten, S. E., Kip, H., Dekkers, T., Deenik, J., Beerlage-de Jong, N., Ludden, G. D. S., & Kelders, S. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Twente (NL)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Section of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
  • North-West University (ZA)
Corresponding author
Schouten, Stephanie E.
Venue
Design for Health
Published
2022-09-02
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
316-344
ISSN
  • 2473-5132 (ISSN-L)
  • 2473-5140
OpenAlex
W4310011244
Cited by
37
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9
FWCI
7.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Design for Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Twente Research Information (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
ZonMw (555003023)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
co-design, severe mental illness, digital mental health interventions, best practices, user participation, vulnerable populations, power balance, technology adoption, user-centered design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review