Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33919920›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Translating Co-Design from Face-to-Face to Online: An Australian Primary Producer Project Conducted during COVID-19.

Alison Kennedy, Catherine Cosgrave, Joanna Macdonald, Kate Gunn, Timo Dietrich, Susan Brumby

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Co-Designing a Culturally Tailored Nutrition Resource With African Migrant Women and Healthcare Professionals in Australia.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Development and Evaluation of a Framework for Authentic Online Co-Design: Partnership-Focussed Principles-Driven Online Co-Design.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Alison KennedyNational Centre for Farmer Health, Deakin University, Hamilton, VIC 3300, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4450-8434
Catherine CosgraveAdjunct Research Fellow, New England Institute of Healthcare Research, School of Rural Medicine, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8491-3282
Joanna MacdonaldNational Centre for Farmer Health, Western District Health Service, Hamilton, VIC 3300, Australia.
Kate GunnDepartment of Rural Health, Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0837-6814
Timo DietrichGriffith Business School, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4824-6117
Susan BrumbyNational Centre for Farmer Health, Deakin University, Hamilton, VIC 3300, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6332-3374

Funding

Victorian State Government's WorkSafe WorkWell Mental Health Improvement Fund Round 3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Primary producers face considerable risks for poor mental health. While this population can be difficult to engage in programs to prevent poor mental health, approaches tailored to reflect the context of primary producers' life and work have been successful. This paper reports on the co-design phase of a project designed to prevent poor mental health for primary producers-specifically, the advantages, challenges and considerations of translating face-to-face co-design methods to an online environment in response to COVID-19 restrictions. The co-design phase drew upon the existing seven-step co-design framework developed by Trischler and colleagues. Online methods were adopted for all steps of the process. This paper models how this co-design approach can work in an online, primary producer context and details key considerations for future initiatives of this type. The development of online co-design methods is an important additional research method for use not only during a pandemic but also when operating with limited resources or geographic constraints. Results demonstrate the following: (i) co-designing online is possible given adequate preparation, training and resource allocation; (ii) "hard to reach" populations can be engaged using online methods providing there is adequate early-stage relationship building; (iii) co-design quality need not be compromised and may be improved when translating to online; and (iv) saved costs and resources associated with online methods can be realigned towards intervention/service creation, promotion and user engagement. Suggestions for extending Trischler and colleagues' model are incorporated.

Indexed as

COVID-19AustraliaHumansMental HealthPandemicsSARS-CoV-2COVID-19farmerfishermental healthonline co-designprimary producerrisk prevention

Identifiers

PMID33919920
PMCPMC8070969

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.