Cited by 49Mental Health and Patient InvolvementDelphi Technique in ResearchSuicide and Self-Harm Studies

Adapting a codesign process with young people to prioritize outcomes for a systematic review of interventions to prevent self-harm and suicide

Open access
Knowles, Sarah, Sharma, Vartika, Fortune, Sarah, Wadman, Ruth, Churchill, Rachel, Hetrick, Sarah·2022·Health Expectations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Research and clinical outcomes that matter to people with lived experience can significantly differ from those outcomes studied by researchers. To inform a future Cochrane review of suicide and self-harm prevention interventions, we aimed to work with young people with relevant lived experience to agree on priority outcomes. DESIGN: Four participatory codesign workshops were completed across two sites (New Zealand, United Kingdom) with 28 young people in total. We iteratively adapted the methods over the course of the study. RESULTS: 'Improved coping' and 'safer/more accepting environment to disclose' were the final top-rated outcomes. 'Reduction of self-harm' was considered a low priority as it could be misleading, stigmatizing and was considered a secondary consequence of other improvements. In contrast to typical research outcomes, young people emphasized the diversity of experience, the dynamic nature of improvement and holistic and asset-based framing. Methodologically, dialogue using design materials (personas) to thematically explore outcomes was effective in overcoming the initial challenge of disparate quantitative ratings. DISCUSSION: The results will directly inform the development of a Cochrane review, enabling identification of whether and how outcomes of most importance to young people are measured in trials. Rather than producing discrete measurable outcomes that could be easily added to the systematic review, the young people challenged the academic conceptualization of outcomes, with implications for future evidence synthesis and intervention research, and for future codesign. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Young people with lived experience were codesigners of the outcomes, and their feedback informed iterative changes to the study methods.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/hex.13479

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [33]Slay J, Stevens L. Co‐production in Mental Health A Literature Review Commissioned by Mind. New Economics Foundation; 2013.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Knowles, S., Sharma, V., Fortune, S., Wadman, R., Churchill, R., & Hetrick, S.
Affiliations
  • University of York (GB)
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
Corresponding author
Knowles, Sarah
Venue
Health Expectations
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-05-06
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
1393-1404
ISSN
  • 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
  • 1369-7625
OpenAlex
W4229002032
Cited by
49
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3
FWCI
1.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Expectations (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
Keywords
co-design, youth, self-harm prevention, suicide prevention, outcome prioritization, lived experience, participatory research, coping, disclosure, stigma, personas, outcome measurement
MeSH terms
Suicide Prevention, Adolescent, United Kingdom, Health Priorities, Humans, New Zealand, Patient Participation, Self-Injurious Behavior, Program Development, Treatment Outcome

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