ArticleHealth promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals2026
Co-Designing Wellbeing Initiatives With Rural Adolescents: What Works, What Doesn't, and Why.
Article in Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Co-Designing Wellbeing Initiatives With Rural Adolescents: What Works, What Doesn't, and Why.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
issue addressedRural Australian youth face persistent mental health inequities yet are rarely meaningfully involved in designing the services meant to support them. This study aimed to explore through co-design what rural young people need and want in their community to support their mental health and wellbeing, with a secondary aim of evaluating the co-design process itself.
methodsThree co-design workshops were conducted with 20 participants (13 young people aged 12-17 years and seven adults) in Kimba, South Australia, using the Double Diamond design framework and PRODUCES co-production principles. Workshops followed a Discover-Define-Develop-Deliver progression. Qualitative content analysis of workshop outputs and focus group data informed findings, alongside descriptive analysis of post-workshop feedback surveys. Study findings were subsequently interpreted through the PROSECO process evaluation framework, applied retrospectively.
resultsCo-designers prioritised practical, occupation-based wellbeing activities, ultimately prototyping a Basic Car Maintenance Workshop and a community Colour Fun Run. Most participants reported feeling able to contribute (72%) and that the process was helpful (96%). Five themes emerged from the process evaluation: factors influencing engagement, experiences of the co-design process, workshop environment and participation, impact and continuation, and voice and inclusion.
conclusionsFlexible, context-sensitive facilitation, anonymous contribution methods, and deliberate management of group dynamics were critical enablers of meaningful youth participation in this rural setting. SO WHAT?: Practical, occupation-based activities co-designed with rural youth can serve as accessible preventative mental health interventions. Embedding structured co-design evaluation frameworks prospectively would strengthen future practice and replication.
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.