Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36253848›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

Evidence of co-creation practices in suicide prevention in government policy: a directed and summative content analysis.

Tania Pearce, Myfanwy Maple, Sarah Wayland, Kathy McKay, Anthony Shakeshaft, Alan Woodward

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Lived Experience Participation in Suicide Prevention Activities in Australia, a Scoping Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Participatory Design in Suicide Prevention: A Qualitative Study of International Students' Experiences of Adapting the LivingWorks safeTALK Programme.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  5. A qualitative evaluation of a co-design process involving young people at risk of suicide.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Co-creation of new knowledge: Good fortune or good management?Research involvement and engagement · 2022
    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.

Tania PearceSchool of Health, University of New England, 2351, Armidale, NSW, Australia. tpearce7@myune.edu.au.
Myfanwy MapleSchool of Health, University of New England, 2351, Armidale, NSW, Australia.
Sarah WaylandSchool of Health, University of New England, 2351, Armidale, NSW, Australia.
Kathy McKayPublic Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Anthony ShakeshaftNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Randwick Campus, 22-32 King Street, 2031, Randwick, NSW, Australia.
Alan WoodwardCentre for Mental Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Australia, the collaborative involvement of stakeholders, especially those with lived experience in mental health and suicide prevention, has become important to government policy and practice at Federal and State levels. However, little is known about how governments translate this intention into frameworks of co-creation for policy, funding programs, service improvement, and research and evaluation. We investigated the extent to which publicly available government policies refer to collaborative practice using an established translation model.

methodsAn exploratory directed and summative content analysis approach was used to analyse the contents of Federal (also known as Commonwealth), State and Territories policy documents on mental health and suicide prevention published in Australia between 2010 and 2021. The data was extracted, compared to an existing translation model, and summated to demonstrate the evidence of co-creation-related concepts between government and stakeholders.

results40 policy documents (nine at the Federal and 31 at the State and Territory level) were identified and included in the analysis. Only 63% of policy documents contained references to the concept of co-design. Six of the State policies contained references to the concept of co-production. Across all policy documents, there were no references to other concepts in the model adopted for this study, such as co-creation, co-ideation, co-implementation, and co-evaluation.

conclusionAlthough the government at Federal, State and Territory levels appear to support collaborative practice through partnership and co-design, this study suggests a narrow approach to the theoretical model for co-creation at a policy level. Implications for both research and practice are discussed.

Indexed as

Health PolicySuicide PreventionAustraliaGovernmentHumansCo-creationCo-designGovernment policyMental healthQualitative content analysisSuicide prevention

Identifiers

PMID36253848
PMCPMC9578215

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.