Healthcare systems redesign and service improvement approaches are adopting participatory tools, techniques and mindsets. Participatory methods increasingly used in healthcare improvement coalesce around the concept of coproduction, and related practices of cocreation, codesign and coinnovation. These participatory methods have become the new Zeitgeist—the spirit of our times in quality improvement. The rationale for this new spirit of participation relates to voice and engagement (those with lived experience should be engaged in processes of development, redesign and improvements), empowerment (engagement in codesign and coproduction has positive individual and societal benefits) and advancement (quality of life and other health outcomes and experiences of services for everyone involved should improve as a result). This paper introduces Mental Health Experience Co-design (MH ECO), a peer designed and led adapted form of Experience-based Co-design (EBCD) developed in Australia. MH ECO is said to facilitate empowerment, foster trust, develop autonomy, self-determination and choice for people living with mental illnesses and their carers, including staff at mental health services. Little information exists about the underlying mechanisms of change; the entities, processes and structures that underpin MH ECO and similar EBCD studies. To address this, we identified eight possible mechanisms from an assessment of the activities and outcomes of MH ECO and a review of existing published evaluations. The eight mechanisms, recognition, dialogue, cooperation, accountability, mobilisation, enactment, creativity and attainment, are discussed within an ‘explanatory theoretical model of change’ that details these and ideal relational transitions that might be observed or not with MH ECO or other EBCD studies. We critically appraise the sociocultural and political movement in coproduction and draw on interdisciplinary theories from the humanities—narrative theory, dialogical ethics, cooperative and empowerment theory. The model advances theoretical thinking in coproduction beyond motivations and towards identifying underlying processes and entities that might impact on process and outcome. Trial registration number The Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12614000457640 (results).

Mental health services are increasingly encouraged to use co‐design methodologies to engage individuals and families affected by mental health problems in service design and improvement. This scoping review aimed to identify research that used co‐design methods with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) communities in mental health services, and to identify methodological considerations for working with this population. In October 2019, we searched five electronic databases (CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science) to identify papers published in which people from CALD backgrounds were engaged in the co‐design of a mental health service or program. Searches were limited to peer‐reviewed articles published in English in the last 25 years (1993–2019). The search identified nine articles that matched the inclusion criteria. Using a scoping review methodology, the first author charted the data using extraction fields and then used qualitative synthesis methods to identify themes. Data were grouped into themes relevant to the research question. The two key themes relate first, to improving the experience for CALD communities when engaging in co‐design research and second, to the development of co‐design methods themselves. These findings support the need for further research into the transferability of co‐design tools with CALD communities, particularly if co‐design is to become a best practice method for service design and improvement. This scoping review identified methodological and practical consideration for researchers looking to use co‐design with CALD communities for mental health service design, re‐design or quality improvement initiatives. Further research is required to explore experiences of co‐design methods, including documented protocols such as experience‐based co‐design, with CALD communities. This review indicates that explanatory models of mental health, community and co‐design impact partnerships with CALD communities, and need to be understood to optimise the quality of these relationships when using co‐design methods.

Experience-based co-design (EBCD) is a quality improvement approach that is being used internationally to bring service users and health professionals together to improve healthcare experiences, systems and processes. Early evaluations and case studies of EBCD have shown promise in terms of improvements to experience and organisational processes, however challenges remain in participation around shared power and decision making, mobilisation for implementation, sustainment of improvements and measurement of outcomes. The objective of this case study was to explore the emergent issues in EBCD participation and implementation in six quality improvement projects conducted in mental health, rehabilitation, blood and bone marrow transplant, brain injury rehabilitation, urinary incontinence and intellectual disability settings by the Agency for Clinical Innovation (ACI), New South Wales, Australia (2015-2018). Methods: A two stage process of analysis was employed. The first stage involved a case to case synthesis using a variable-oriented approach. In this approach themes were identified within individual cases and compared across cases in workshops with all project leads. In the second stage the case themes were synthesised within an overarching thematic that was identified as the main challenge in effective participation and implementation in these EBCD projects. The results: themes identified in the first stage of analysis related to different methods for gathering experiences and the activities used for the co-design of improvements. Variability in service user participation within co-design workshops was also discussed. Four out of the six projects implemented improvements in full. The prominent thematic overarching all six EBCD cases was the need for guidance on capability development and co-design preparedness for all participants in co-design not only project leads. In conclusion, variability in EBCD implementation makes it difficult to identify which component parts are essential for improving experiences and services, and which of these lead to sustained changes and benefits for service users and health professionals. One way to address this is to develop a model for co-design capability and preparedness that is closely linked with a set of eight mechanisms that have been previously identified as essential to achieving change in healthcare improvement initiatives. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Innovation & Technology lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework. (http://bit.ly/ExperienceFramework) Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens

Depression and related disorders represent a significant part of general practitioners (GPs) daily work. Implementing the evidence about what works for depression care into routine practice presents a challenge for researchers and service designers. The emerging consensus is that the transfer of efficacious interventions into routine practice is strongly linked to how well the interventions are based upon theory and take into account the contextual factors of the setting into which they are to be transferred. We set out to develop a conceptual framework to guide change and the implementation of best practice depression care in the primary care setting. We used a mixed method, observational approach to gather data about routine depression care in a range of primary care settings via: audit of electronic health records; observation of routine clinical care; and structured, facilitated whole of organisation meetings. Audit data were summarised using simple descriptive statistics. Observational data were collected using field notes. Organisational meetings were audio taped and transcribed. All the data sets were grouped, by organisation, and considered as a whole case. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was identified as an analytical theory to guide the conceptual framework development. Five privately owned primary care organisations (general practices) and one community health centre took part over the course of 18 months. We successfully developed a conceptual framework for implementing an effective model of depression care based on the four constructs of NPT: coherence, which proposes that depression work requires the conceptualisation of boundaries of who is depressed and who is not depressed and techniques for dealing with diffuseness; cognitive participation, which proposes that depression work requires engagement with a shared set of techniques that deal with depression as a health problem; collective action, which proposes that agreement is reached about how care is organised; and reflexive monitoring, which proposes that depression work requires agreement about how depression work will be monitored at the patient and practice level. We describe how these constructs can be used to guide the design and implementation of effective depression care in a way that can take account of contextual differences. Ideas about what is required for an effective model and system of depression care in primary care need to be accompanied by theoretically informed frameworks that consider how these can be implemented. The conceptual framework we have presented can be used to guide organisational and system change to develop common language around each construct between policy makers, service users, professionals, and researchers. This shared understanding across groups is fundamental to the effective implementation of change in primary care for depression.

Introduction User engagement in mental health service design is heralded as integral to health systems quality and performance, but does engagement improve health outcomes? This article describes the CORE study protocol, a novel stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (SWCRCT) to improve psychosocial recovery outcomes for people with severe mental illness. Methods An SWCRCT with a nested process evaluation will be conducted over nearly 4 years in Victoria, Australia. 11 teams from four mental health service providers will be randomly allocated to one of three dates 9 months apart to start the intervention. The intervention, a modified version of Mental Health Experience Co-Design (MH ECO), will be delivered to 30 service users, 30 carers and 10 staff in each cluster. Outcome data will be collected at baseline (6 months) and at completion of each intervention wave. The primary outcome is improvement in recovery score using the 24-item Revised Recovery Assessment Scale for service users. Secondary outcomes are improvements to user and carer mental health and well-being using the shortened 8-item version of the WHOQOL Quality of Life scale (EUROHIS), changes to staff attitudes using the 19-item Staff Attitudes to Recovery Scale and recovery orientation of services using the 36-item Recovery Self Assessment Scale (provider version). Intervention and usual care periods will be compared using a linear mixed effects model for continuous outcomes and a generalised linear mixed effects model for binary outcomes. Participants will be analysed in the group that the cluster was assigned to at each time point. Ethics and dissemination The University of Melbourne, Human Research Ethics Committee (1340299.3) and the Federal and State Departments of Health Committees (Project 20/2014) granted ethics approval. Baseline data results will be reported in 2015 and outcomes data in 2017. Trial registration number Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614000457640.

Participation in health care is currently the zeitgeist/spirit of our times. A myriad of practices characterizes this “participatory Zeitgeist” in contemporary health care, which range from patients and professionals collaborating as partners in service delivery and treatment decision-making, to crowdsourced cures and participation in online communities, to using health apps, to involvement in health care quality improvement initiatives for systems redesign using coproduction and co-design methods. To date, patient engagement and participation in online communities and the use of apps have received a good deal of attention in participatory medicine. However, there has been a less critical examination of participation in health care planning, design, delivery, and improvement. In the face of what Thomas Kuhn called a scientific revolution, we are presented with the opportunity to re-examine some of the assumptions underpinning participation in health care and some of the emerging anomalies and weaknesses in the current science. This re-examination will allow the development of a new paradigm, a science of participation. In this science, we can systematically test, refine, and advance participation in health care to build a unifying language and theories from across the interdisciplinary fields of participatory design, medicine, and research to develop and test models to explain impacts and outcomes. A science of participation will allow the emergent and unexplained facts to be addressed in the current participatory mood of health care planning, design, delivery, and improvement.