Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWright, LCen_US
dc.contributor.authorLopez Chemas, Nen_US
dc.contributor.authorCooper, Cen_US
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-21T08:32:24Z
dc.date.issued2023-12-27en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/97581
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: This study aims to map existing literature describing how people with lived experience of self-harm have engaged in codesigning self-harm interventions, understand barriers and facilitators to this engagement, and how the meaningfulness of codesign has been evaluated. DESIGN: Scoping review by Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. A protocol was published online (http://dx.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/P52UD). DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, ClinicalTrials.gov and relevant websites were searched on 24 December 2022 (repeated 4 November 2023). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies where individuals with lived experience of self-harm (first-hand or caregiver) have codesigned self-harm interventions. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Results were screened at title and abstract level, then full-text level by two researchers independently. Prespecified data were extracted, charted and sorted into themes. RESULTS: We included 22 codesigned interventions across mobile health, educational settings, prisons and emergency departments. Involvement varied from designing content to multistage involvement in planning, delivery and dissemination. Included papers described the contribution of 159 female, 39 male and 21 transgender or gender diverse codesigners. Few studies included contributors from a minoritised ethnic or LGBTQIA+ group. Six studies evaluated how meaningfully people with lived experience were engaged in codesign: by documenting the impact of contributions on intervention design or through postdesign reflections. Barriers included difficulties recruiting inclusively, making time for meaningful engagement in stretched services and safeguarding concerns for codesigners. Explicit processes for ensuring safety and well-being, flexible schedules, and adequate funding facilitated codesign. CONCLUSIONS: To realise the potential of codesign to improve self-harm interventions, people with lived experience must be representative of those who use services. This requires processes that reassure potential contributors and referrers that codesigners will be safeguarded, remunerated, and their contributions used and valued.en_US
dc.format.extente079090 - ?en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.relation.ispartofBMJ Openen_US
dc.rightsThis is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
dc.subjectMENTAL HEALTHen_US
dc.subjectPatient Participationen_US
dc.subjectSuicide & self-harmen_US
dc.subjectHumansen_US
dc.subjectMaleen_US
dc.subjectFemaleen_US
dc.subjectTelemedicineen_US
dc.subjectSelf-Injurious Behavioren_US
dc.subjectResearch Personnelen_US
dc.titleLived experience codesign of self-harm interventions: a scoping review.en_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.holder© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079090en_US
pubs.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38151276en_US
pubs.issue12en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublished onlineen_US
pubs.volume13en_US
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record