Get Help Quick Close

Resources

banner-image-2
Get Help Quick Close

The usefulness of healthcare resources for people with mental and physical health concerns: a systematic review using co-design principles

Overview

This systematic review examined 55 healthcare resources designed for people with both mental and physical health concerns. Using co-design principles with a lived experience group, researchers found that resources developed with consumer involvement were significantly more useful than those without. The study demonstrates that engaging people with lived experience in resource development improves credibility, accessibility, and practical value for mental health consumers managing their physical health needs.

Download this resource (~2,457KB) Give us feedback

Individual authors

Lead Authors:

  • Tessa-May Zirnsak (La Trobe University) - Lead researcher
  • Rosiel Elwyn (University of the Sunshine Coast)
  • Chris Maylea (La Trobe University) - Senior researcher

Academic Researchers:

  • Melanie Sherrin (La Trobe University)
  • Leighann Spencer (La Trobe University)
  • Russell Roberts (Charles Sturt University/Equally Well/Manna Institute)

Key insights

Key Insights:

  1. Resources with lived experience involvement were 2-3 times more likely to be useful

  2. Only 19 of 55 resources were deemed completely useful by consumers

  3. 74% of useful resources included lived experience experts in development teams

  4. Clinical expertise alone is insufficient for creating effective consumer resources

  5. Co-design principles significantly improve resource credibility and practical application

  6. Most existing resources are designed for clinicians, not direct consumer use

  7. Consumer involvement in research evaluation enhances translational capacity and trust

  8. Seeking diverse lived experience perspectives made resources 10 times more useful

Did this resource draw on transformative evidence?

<p>The study was extensively based on experiential expertise. The research was led by two lived experience researchers and included a co-design group of people with mental and physical health concerns who had decision-making roles throughout the study. Lived experience experts conducted screening, data extraction, defined "usefulness" criteria, and evaluated all resources. The methodology explicitly positioned consumers as co-directors of the research rather than traditional subjects.</p>
<p>The document incorporated limited practice wisdom. While the research team included academics with clinical and health service backgrounds, the study explicitly critiqued clinician-designed resources as insufficient. The methodology deliberately prioritised lived experience over professional practice wisdom, finding that resources developed by health practitioners alone were less useful. The focus was on consumer expertise rather than clinical practice knowledge, representing a shift away from traditional professional-centered approaches.</p>
<p>The study was strongly based on research and evaluation insights. It employed systematic review methodology across three academic databases, screening 26,856 resources using Covidence software. The study utilised rigorous evaluation frameworks (referencing GRIPP2), applied consensus-based assessment criteria, and conducted statistical analysis of usefulness correlations. However, it notably integrated research methodology with lived experience evaluation expertise rather than relying solely on traditional academic research approaches.</p>

Feedback

Let us know if you found this resource useful.

Categories

Resource type

Systematic Review