Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33155982›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2020

Co-Designing a Web-Based Decision Aid Tool for Employees Disclosure of Mental Health Conditions: A Participatory Study Design Using Employee and Organizational Preferences.

Elizabeth Stratton, Isabella Choi, Dorian Peters, Rafael A Calvo, Samuel B Harvey, Nicholas Glozier

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Elizabeth Stratton *Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0699-7588
Isabella ChoiCentral Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6033-1563
Dorian PetersDyson School of Design Engineering, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4767-4198
Rafael A CalvoDyson School of Design Engineering, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2238-0684
Samuel B HarveySchool of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9580-3743
Nicholas GlozierCentral Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0476-9146
The University of Sydney · AUBlack Dog Institute · AUDyson (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecisions of whether to disclose mental health conditions are extremely personal and require the consideration of multiple factors associated with the disclosure process (eg, weighing the risks and benefits). Decision aid tools help people make these complex decisions. Such an aid needs to be confidential, easily accessible, and easy to use with the potential to access the tool on multiple occasions. Web programs are well suited to meet these requirements and, if properly developed, can provide feasible, accessible, affordable, and effective workplace interventions.

objectiveThis study aims to gain insights from potential end users, in this case both employees and organizations, into what type of components including language, style, and content would avoid potential stigma and ensure that elements of clear value for users would be built into a web-based decision aid tool that aims to assist employees in making decisions about the disclosure of their mental health condition at work.

methodsA participatory design approach was used to allow developers, researchers, experts, and end users to collaborate in co-designing the tool. During the user research phase of the development of the web-based tool, a participatory design workshop approach was selected as a part of a larger study of focus groups. Australian employees and managers in rural, suburban, and urban locations participated in an exploratory qualitative study involving participatory workshops designed to elicit their perspectives and preferences for a decision aid tool.

resultsA total of 2 workshops were conducted with 13 participants. The majority were from a transport company (9/13, 69%), male (8/13, 62%), and employed full time (11/13, 85%). Six employees had previous experience disclosing their own mental health condition, and 7 were in a supervisory role and had previously been disclosed to. In any co-design development, there are certain trade-offs that need to be made between the views of experts, developers, end users, and the available budget. In this specific instance of a very delicate, personal decision, the end users provided valuable design insights into key areas such as language, and they were very antipathetic to a key feature, the avatar, which was thought to be desirable by experts and developers. Findings including aspects of the tool where all stakeholders were in agreement, aspects where some stakeholders disagreed and adaptations were implemented, where disagreements could not be implemented because of financial constraints, and misalignment between stakeholders and how to decide on a balance were shared.

conclusionsThe co-design with a lived experience approach is useful for contributing much to the design, language, and features. The key in this study was balancing the needs of the workers and the potential impact for the managers and organizations, while ensuring legislation and regulation requirements were upheld.

Indexed as

decision aid toolemployee disclosuremental healthweb-based

Identifiers

PMID33155982
PMCPMC7679208
OpenAlexW3094660304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.