Determining Priorities in the Aboriginal and Islander Mental Health Initiative for Youth App Second Phase Participatory Design Project: Qualitative Study and Narrative Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital mental health tools can promote access to culturally safe early intervention mental health services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people. Participatory design methodology facilitates user engagement in the co-design of digital resources. However, several challenges have been identified that limit the methodological rigor of this approach. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to present an in-depth account of the second phase of participatory design in the development of the Aboriginal and Islander Mental Health Initiative for Youth (AIMhi-Y) app. METHODS: A first idea storyboard, generated from a formative phase of the AIMhi-Y project, was refined through a series of youth co-design workshops and meetings. A narrative review of the literature, 6 service provider interviews, and engagement with an expert reference group also informed the design process. Generative design activities, storyboarding, discussions, and voting strategies were used. RESULTS: The participatory design process identified the app features preferred by young people and service providers and assessed their alignment with current recommendations from the scientific literature. Findings from the co-design process are presented across 9 app characteristic domains. Integration of findings into app design proved complex. Although most preferred features identified by young people were included to some degree, other inclusions were restricted by budget, time, and the need to integrate best practice recommendations. A process of prioritization was required. CONCLUSIONS: Participatory design is often cited in the development of digital mental health resources; however, methods are diverse and often lack detailed descriptions. This study reports the outcomes and strategies used to determine priorities in the second phase of the development of the AIMhi-Y app. We provide an example and the key learnings to inform others seeking to use participatory design with a similar cohort.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".