Developing A Mobile App With a Human-Centered Design Lens to Improve Access to Mental Health Care (Mentallys Project): Protocol for an Initial Co-Design Process
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Co-design is one of the human-centered design approaches that allows end users to significantly and positively impact the design of mental health technologies. It is a promising approach to foster user acceptance and engagement in digital mental health solutions. Surprisingly, there is a lack of understanding of what co-design is in this field. In this paper, co-design is approached as a cocreation process involving persons with a lived experience of mental health problems, health professionals, and design experts who lead and facilitate the overall creative process. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes an initial co-design research protocol for the development of a mobile app that aims to improve access to mental health care. It highlights the characteristics of a co-design approach in e-mental health rooted in human-centered design and led by design experts alongside health experts. The paper focuses on the first steps (phase 1) of the co-design process of the ongoing Mentallys project. METHODS: This Mentallys project will be located in Montréal (Quebec, Canada). The method approach will be based on the "method stories," depicting the "making of" this project and reflecting adjustments needed to the protocol throughout the project in specific situations. Phase 1 of the process will focus on the desirability of the app. Targeted participants will include people with a lived experience of mental health problems, peer support workers and clinicians, and 3 facilitators (all design experts or researchers). Web-based sessions will be organized because of the COVID-19 pandemic, using Miro (RealtimeBoard Inc) and Zoom (Zoom Video Communications, Inc). Data collection will be based on the comments, thoughts, and new ideas of participants around the imaginary prototypes. Thematic analysis will be carried out after each session to inform a new version of the prototype. RESULTS: We conducted 2 stages in phase 1 of the process. During stage 1, we explored ideas through group co-design workshops (divergent thinking). Six co-design workshops were held: 2 with only clinicians (n=7), 2 with peer support workers (n=5) and people with a lived experience of mental health problems (n=2), and 2 with all of them (n=14). A total of 6 facilitators participated in conducting activities in subgroups. During stage 2, ideas were refined through 10 dyad co-design sessions (convergent thinking). Stage 2 involved 3 participants (n=3) and 1 facilitator. Thematic analysis was performed after stage 1, while analytic questioning is being performed for stage 2. Both stages allowed several iterations of the prototypes. CONCLUSIONS: The design of the co-design process, the leadership of the design expertise throughout the process, and the different forms of co-design activities are key elements in this project. We highly recommend that health researchers partner with professional designers or design researchers who are familiar with co-design. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/47220.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,099 | 0,134 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,040 | 0,013 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».