ArticleAustralian occupational therapy journal2024
Utilising co-design to develop a lived experience informed personal safety tool within a mental health community rehabilitation setting.
Article in Australian occupational therapy journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Facts label for transparent communication of AI Risks in mental health technology.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Utilising co-design to develop a lived experience informed personal safety tool within a mental health community rehabilitation setting.Australian occupational therapy journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMental health personal safety tools aim to promote a recovery focus and empower an individualised approach to consumer care. These clinical tools are predominantly utilised in acute mental health settings with a person during or straight after a crisis. There is currently a gap in the literature regarding the preparation of personal safety tools in non-acute mental health settings. This descriptive article discusses the learnings and outcomes from a co-designed project that aimed to develop a personal safety tool suitable for a community mental health rehabilitation setting.
methodsSeven people with lived experience engaging within a mental health community-based rehabilitation service were recruited through convenience sampling to participate in the co-design project. A focus group approach was utilised during four group meetings to develop a personal safety tool template. Experiences and ideas about safety planning were transcribed during meetings and thematic analysis extracted key themes. Five steps underpinned the co-design process that included identifying the need, establishing the co-design group, planning, design and development, and review and closure. CONSUMER AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Consumer involvement commenced at step two of the co-design process. The completed personal safety tool was designed with consumer input and review.
findingsThe personal safety tool consisted of nine intervention components. Four key themes emerged from focus group meetings that informed the content of the tool: (i) ensuring the personal safety tool is individualised and meaningful, (ii) promoting exploration of personal strengths and interests, (iii) enabling opportunities to learn self-management skills, and (iv) treating the personal safety tool as a dynamic and adaptable tool.
conclusionFindings suggest that a personal safety tool targeted to a mental health community-based rehabilitation setting should have an individualised and preventative focus to mental health care. Embedding co-design principles can support opportunities for meaningful consumer engagement and establishing consumer and clinician partnerships.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.