Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35179498›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

Determining Priorities in the Aboriginal and Islander Mental Health Initiative for Youth App Second Phase Participatory Design Project: Qualitative Study and Narrative Literature Review.

Josie Povey, Michelle Sweet, Tricia Nagel, Anne Lowell, Fiona Shand, Jahdai Vigona, Kylie M Dingwall

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Josie PoveyMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6961-4674
Michelle SweetMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7890-0477
Tricia NagelMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4123-7229
Anne LowellNorthern Institute, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9540-1939
Fiona ShandBlack Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6765-228X
Jahdai VigonaMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2609-9873
Kylie M DingwallMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Alice Springs, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7841-4751
Charles Darwin University · AUBlack Dog Institute · AUSprint (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital mental health tools can promote access to culturally safe early intervention mental health services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people. Participatory design methodology facilitates user engagement in the co-design of digital resources. However, several challenges have been identified that limit the methodological rigor of this approach.

objectiveThis paper aims to present an in-depth account of the second phase of participatory design in the development of the Aboriginal and Islander Mental Health Initiative for Youth (AIMhi-Y) app.

methodsA first idea storyboard, generated from a formative phase of the AIMhi-Y project, was refined through a series of youth co-design workshops and meetings. A narrative review of the literature, 6 service provider interviews, and engagement with an expert reference group also informed the design process. Generative design activities, storyboarding, discussions, and voting strategies were used.

resultsThe participatory design process identified the app features preferred by young people and service providers and assessed their alignment with current recommendations from the scientific literature. Findings from the co-design process are presented across 9 app characteristic domains. Integration of findings into app design proved complex. Although most preferred features identified by young people were included to some degree, other inclusions were restricted by budget, time, and the need to integrate best practice recommendations. A process of prioritization was required.

conclusionsParticipatory design is often cited in the development of digital mental health resources; however, methods are diverse and often lack detailed descriptions. This study reports the outcomes and strategies used to determine priorities in the second phase of the development of the AIMhi-Y app. We provide an example and the key learnings to inform others seeking to use participatory design with a similar cohort.

Indexed as

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderappdecision-makingdigital mental healthmobile phoneparticipatory designyoung people

Identifiers

PMID35179498
PMCPMC8900920
OpenAlexW4206658539

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.