CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 42Digital Mental Health InterventionsInnovative Human-Technology InteractionMental Health and Patient Involvement

Co-designing a digital mental health platform, “Momentum”, with young people aged 7–17: A qualitative study

Open access
Ludlow, Kristiana, Russell, Jeremy K, Ryan, Brooke, Brown, Renee L, Joynt, Tamsin, Uhlmann, Laura R, Smith, Genevieve E, Donovan, Caroline +4 more·2023·DIGITAL HEALTH
DOI 10.1177/20552076231216410PMC PMC10685776
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Introduction: Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) offer a promising alternative or adjunct treatment method to face-to-face treatment, overcoming barriers associated with stigma, access, and cost. This project is embedded in user experience and co-design to enhance the potential acceptability, usability and integration of digital platforms into youth mental health services. Objective: To co-design a digital mental health platform that provides self-directed, tailored, and modularised treatment for young people aged 7–17 years experiencing anxiety, depression and other related problems. Methods: Sixty-eight participants, aged 7–17 years, engaged in one of 20 co-design workshops. Eight workshops involved children (n = 26, m = 9.42 years, sd = 1.27) and 12 involved adolescents (n = 42, m = 14.57 years, sd = 1.89). Participants engaged in a variety of co-design activities (e.g., designing a website home page and rating self-report assessment features). Workshop transcripts and artefacts (e.g., participants’ drawings) were thematically analysed using Gale et al.'s Framework Method in NVivo. Results: Six themes were identified: Interactive; Relatable; Customisable; Intuitive; Inclusive; and Personalised, transparent and trustworthy content. The analysis revealed differences between children's and adolescents’ designs and ideas, supporting the need for two different versions of the platform, with age-appropriate activities, features, terminology, and content. Conclusions: This research showcased co-design as a powerful tool to facilitate collaboration with young people in designing DMHIs. Two sets of recommendations were produced: 1) recommendations for the design, functionality, and content of youth DMHIs, supported by child- and adolescent-designed strategies; and 2) recommendations for clinicians and researchers planning to conduct co-design and intervention development research with children and adolescents.

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 · 10.1177/20552076231216410

Cites

20 of 20 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?

  • Previous studies with participatory approaches when developing CBT interventions for youth anxiety have primarily focused on digital interventions.

    “When developing CBT interventions for youth anxiety, previous studies with participatory approaches have primarily been focused on digital interventions [18–23].”

    From Developing a primary care-based cognitive behavioral intervention for anxiety in children through a participatory approach: a qualitative study. (2026) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Objective describes co-designing a digital treatment platform with young people aged 7–17 experiencing anxiety, so this paper is an example of a participatory approach to a digital youth-anxiety intervention. The cited paper does not identify Momentum as a CBT intervention or establish that previous participatory studies were primarily digital; its Introduction discusses digital CBT separately. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 28

  1. [3]Finning K Ukoumunne OC Ford T, et al. The association between child and adolescent depression and poor attendance at school: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord 2019; 245: 928– 938. 2019/02/01. 30699878
  2. [4]Rubens SL Evans SC Becker SP, et al. Self-reported time in bed and sleep quality in association with internalizing and externalizing symptoms in school-age youth. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 2017; 48: 455– 467. 2016/07/23. 27448289 PMC6047356
  3. [5]Loevaas MES Sund AM Patras J, et al. Emotion regulation and its relation to symptoms of anxiety and depression in children aged 8-12 years: does parental gender play a differentiating role? BMC Psychol 2018; 6: 42. 2018/08/22. 30126444 PMC6102894
  4. [7]Copeland WE Adair CE Smetanin P, et al. Diagnostic transitions from childhood to adolescence to early adulthood. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2013; 54: 791– 799. 2013/03/05. 23451804 PMC3674149
  5. [10]Jorm AF. The quality gap in mental health treatment in Australia. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2015; 49: 934– 935. 2015/09/13. 26362604
  6. [14]Duden GS Gersdorf S Stengler K. Global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health services: A systematic review. J Psychiatr Res 2022; 154: 354– 377. 2022/09/03. 36055116 PMC9392550
  7. [15]McDonnell D Vasiliou VS Lonergan E, et al. Psychologists’ experiences who managed waitlists in mental-health services during the COVID-19 lockdown: A mixed-method study. EJPO 2022; 81: 47– 56.
  8. [17]Radez J Reardon T Creswell C, et al. Adolescents’ perceived barriers and facilitators to seeking and accessing professional help for anxiety and depressive disorders: A qualitative interview study. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2022; 31: 891– 907. 2021/01/28. 33502596 PMC9209355
  9. [18]Anderson JK Howarth E Vainre M, et al. A scoping literature review of service-level barriers for access and engagement with mental health services for children and young people. Child Youth Serv Rev 2017; 77: 164– 176.
  10. [19]Roberts M Jones J Garcia L, et al. Adolescents’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators to engaging in mental health treatment: A qualitative meta-synthesis. J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Nurs 2022; 35: 113– 125. 2021/10/06. 34609034
  11. [22]Khanna MS Carper M. Digital mental health interventions for child and adolescent anxiety. Cogn Behav Pract 2022; 29: 60– 68.
  12. [24]March S Donovan CL Baldwin S, et al. Using stepped-care approaches within internet-based interventions for youth anxiety: three case studies. Internet Interv 2019; 18: 100281. 31890629 PMC6926334
  13. [27]Donovan CL March S. Online CBT for preschool anxiety disorders: a randomised control trial. Behav Res Ther 2014; 58: 24– 35. 2014/06/14. 24927471
  14. [29]Clarke AM Kuosmanen T Barry MM. A systematic review of online youth mental health promotion and prevention interventions. J Youth Adolesc 2015; 44: 90– 113. 25115460
  15. [35]Jones R B Stallard P Agha SS, et al. Practitioner review: co-design of digital mental health technologies with children and young people. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2020; 61: 928– 940. 32572961 PMC7611975
  16. [36]Achilles MR Anderson M Li SH, et al. Adherence to e-mental health among youth: considerations for intervention development and research design. Digit Health 2020; 6: 2055207620926064. 32547775 PMC7249594
  17. [38]Thabrew H Fleming T Hetrick S, et al. Co-design of ehealth interventions with children and young people. Front Psychiatry 2018; 9: 481. 2018/11/09. 30405450 PMC6200840
  18. [39]Bird M McGillion M Chambers EM, et al. A generative co-design framework for healthcare innovation: development and application of an end-user engagement framework. Res Involv Engagem 2021; 7: 12. 33648588 PMC7923456
  19. [41]Jolles M P Willging CE Stadnick NA, et al. Understanding implementation research collaborations from a co-creation lens: Recommendations for a path forward. Front Health Serv 2022; 2. 2022/01/01. doi: 10.3389/frhs.2022.942658. PMC10003830 36908715 · DOI
  20. [42]Nakarada-Kordic I Hayes N Reay SD, et al. Co-designing for mental health: creative methods to engage young people experiencing psychosis. Design Health 2017; 1: 229– 244.
  21. [43]Steen M Manschot M Koning ND. Benefits of co-design in service design projects. Int J Des 2011; 5: 53– 60. Benefits, Co-Design, Service Design, Cases.
  22. [44]Sanders EB-N Brandt E Binder T. A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design. In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference. Sydney, Australia: Association for Computing Machinery, 2010, p. 195– 198.
  23. [45]Bratteteig T Bødker K Dittrich Y, et al. Methods: organising principles and general guidelines for participatory design projects. In: Simonsen Jesper Robertson Toni (eds) Routledge international handbook of participatory design. New York, NY: Routledge International, 2013, pp. 117– 144.
  24. [46]Kensing F Greenbaum J. Heritage: having a say. In: Simonsen Jesper Roberton Toni (eds) Routledge international handbook of participatory design. New York, NY: Routledge, 2013.
  25. [47]Sanders EBN Stappers PJ. Probes, toolkits and prototypes: three approaches to making in codesigning. CoDes 2014; 10: 5– 14.
  26. [50]Korstjens I Moser A. Series: practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: trustworthiness and publishing. Eur J Gen Pract 2018; 24: 120– 124. 2017/12/06. 29202616 PMC8816392
  27. [52]Carter N Bryant-Lukosius D DiCenso A, et al. The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncol Nurs Forum 2014; 41: 545– 547. 2014/08/28. 25158659
  28. [53]Adler K Salanterä S Zumstein-Shaha M. Focus group interviews in child, youth, and parent research: An integrative literature review. Int J Qual Methods 2019; 18: 1609406919887274.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ludlow, K., Russell, J. K., Ryan, B., Brown, R. L., Joynt, T., Uhlmann, L. R., Smith, G. E., Donovan, C., Hides, L., Spence, S. H., March, S., & Cobham, V. E.
Affiliations
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • University of Southern Queensland (AU)
  • Griffith University (AU)
Corresponding author
Ludlow, Kristiana
ORCID
Venue
DIGITAL HEALTH
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2023-01
Volume
9
Pages
20552076231216410-20552076231216410
ISSN
2055-2076 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/20552076231216410
PMC
PMC10685776
OpenAlex
W4389148508
Cited by
42
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 4
FWCI
9.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1179490)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
digital mental health interventions, youth mental health, co-design, children and adolescents, anxiety, depression, user experience, age-appropriate design, self-directed treatment, platform 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