The Design Rationale and Preliminary Evaluation of a Prototype Designed by People With Lived Experience of Psychosis and Professionals: Design Research Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Experiences of mental distress are considered difficult to communicate, particularly experiences of psychosis. Research indicates that the frequently used medical focus falls short in capturing the nuanced interpersonal dynamics that these altered states may involve. Psychosis may seem very different from a lived experience perspective than it does from a traditional psychiatric perspective. This calls for innovative lived experience-based methodologies. This paper presents the development and preliminary evaluation of a design prototype co-designed to strengthen the role of people experiencing psychosis in the care process and describes its design rationale. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this research is 2-fold. First, this study aims to co-design, in partnership with people with lived experience, an approach supported by generative design methodology that enables clients to express their experiences in their own way and evaluate the developed approach with dyads of clients who experienced a first episode of psychosis and professionals. Second, it aims to provide a clear and transparent design rationale for the approach, enabling future designers and researchers to understand its intention. METHODS: The study involved co-design workshops, prototype sessions, a small-scale test phase with 7 client-professional dyads, the generation of qualitative data through semistructured interviews, and deductive and inductive thematic analyses. RESULTS: The In Picture Approach was co-designed and tested, and its design rationale was described. The preliminary evaluation indicates that the developed prototype stimulated motivation, dialogue, and reflection of clients, with professionals reporting improved insight into their clients and some reconsiderations in care plans. While the exercises themselves were not always the source of new insights, the conversations they provoked proved meaningful. Clients felt seen and empowered and felt more able to take the initiative. Guided by design frameworks, the design process and design rationale were described, including design principles, supporting theories, working theory, design choices, and coproduced goals, allowing future researchers and designers to build on the concept. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a lived experience-based, co-designed prototype that can be positioned as a potential boundary object, along with its design rationale. Preliminary test results suggest that In Picture Approach can foster meaningful dialogue between client-professional dyads, support clients' self-exploration, and provide professionals with new perspectives on their clients. Although tested on a small scale, the results suggest its potential as a supportive tool within recovery-oriented care; however, broader and longer-term evaluation will be required to establish its contribution to personalized care planning. The co-design approach stimulated lived experience leadership by giving real decision-making power to people with lived experience of psychosis. Most importantly, this paper shows why it matters to make design rationales explicit in a field where they are often missing.
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 | 0,076 | 0,114 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,002 |
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 ».