‘Everyone is different’: Seeking consensus, determining priorities and decision making in the AIMhi-Y App second phase participatory design project (Preprint)

Abstract

Participatory Design methodology is commonly used to engage youth in the co-design of digital mental health (dMH) resources. However, challenges with this approach such as selection bias, differing user preferences, tensions between formative and summative research methods and adequate resourcing have been reported [1, 2]. In response to limited reporting of co-design processes in the literature, in this paper we provide an in-depth account of the processes used in the second phase of Participatory Design in development of the Aboriginal and Islander Mental Health initiative for youth (AIMhi-Y) Application.

In response to limited reporting of co-design processes in the literature, in this paper we provide an in-depth account of the processes used in the second phase of Participatory Design in development of the Aboriginal and Islander Mental Health initiative for youth (AIMhi-Y) Application.

A first idea prototype, generated from a formative phase of the AIMhi-Y project [3], was refined through a series of youth co-design workshops, integration of the scientific literature, six service provider interviews and engagement with an Indigenous Youth Reference Group (IYRG). Generative design strategies, storyboarding, discussion and voting strategies were used.

Throughout this participatory design project, we identified app features preferred by participants and assessed their alignment with current recommendations and scientific literature. Findings from the co-design process are presented across nine app characteristic domains. Integration of findings into app design proved complex. Although we were able to include most preferred features identified by youth to some degree, the available budget restricted what was able to be integrated into the prototype and a process of prioritisation was required.

Participatory design is often cited in the development of dMH resources; however, methods are diverse and often lack detailed description. This study reports processes and strategies used to seek consensus and determine priorities in the development of a dMH resource for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth, providing an example to inform others seeking to use participatory design with a similar cohort.