Benz Cloe, Scott-Jeffs Will, McKercher K A, Welsh Mai, Norman Richard, Hendrie Delia, Locantro Matthew, Robinson Suzanne
School of Population Health, Curtin University, Bentley, Australia.
Rocky Bay, Mosman Park, WA, Australia.
Res Involv Engagem. 2024 May 10;10(1):47. doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00573-3.
As co-design and community-based participatory research gain traction in health and disability, the challenges and benefits of collaboratively conducting research need to be considered. Current literature supports using co-design to improve service quality and create more satisfactory services. However, while the 'why' of using co-design is well understood, there is limited literature on 'how' to co-design. We aimed to describe the application of co-design from start to finish within a specific case study and to reflect on the challenges and benefits created by specific process design choices.
A telepractice re-design project has been a case study example of co-design. The co-design was co-facilitated by an embedded researcher and a peer researcher with lived experience of disability. Embedded in a Western Australian disability organisation, the co-design process included five workshops and a reflection session with a team of 10 lived experience and staff participants (referred to as co-designers) to produce a prototype telepractice model for testing.
The findings are divided into two components. The first describes the process design choices made throughout the co-design implementation case study. This is followed by a reflection on the benefits and challenges resulting from specific process design choices. The reflective process describes the co-designers' perspective and the researcher's and organisational experiences. Reflections of the co-designers include balancing idealism and realism, the value of small groups, ensuring accessibility and choice, and learning new skills and gaining new insights. The organisational and research-focused reflections included challenges between time for building relationships and the schedules of academic and organisational decision-making, the messiness of co-design juxtaposed with the processes of ethics applications, and the need for inclusive dissemination of findings.
The authors advocate that co-design is a useful and outcome-generating methodology that proactively enables the inclusion of people with disability and service providers through community-based participatory research and action. Through our experiences, we recommend community-based participatory research, specifically co-design, to generate creative thinking and service design.
随着协同设计和基于社区的参与式研究在健康与残疾领域越来越受关注，需要考虑合作开展研究的挑战和益处。现有文献支持使用协同设计来提高服务质量并创造更令人满意的服务。然而，虽然使用协同设计的“原因”已广为人知，但关于“如何”进行协同设计的文献却很有限。我们旨在描述在一个特定案例研究中从头到尾应用协同设计的情况，并反思特定流程设计选择所带来的挑战和益处。
一个远程医疗实践重新设计项目是协同设计的一个案例研究示例。该协同设计由一名嵌入式研究人员和一名有残疾生活经历的同行研究人员共同推动。该协同设计过程嵌入西澳大利亚一个残疾组织，包括五个研讨会和一次反思会议，参与人员有10名有生活经历者和工作人员（称为协同设计者），目的是制作一个用于测试的远程医疗实践原型模型。
研究结果分为两个部分。第一部分描述了在整个协同设计实施案例研究中所做的流程设计选择。随后是对特定流程设计选择所带来的益处和挑战的反思。反思过程描述了协同设计者的观点以及研究人员和组织的经历。协同设计者的反思包括平衡理想主义和现实主义、小组的价值、确保可达性和选择，以及学习新技能和获得新见解。以组织和研究为重点的反思包括建立关系的时间与学术和组织决策时间表之间的挑战、协同设计的杂乱与伦理应用过程的并列，以及研究结果包容性传播的必要性。
作者主张协同设计是一种有用且能产生成果的方法，它通过基于社区的参与式研究和行动，积极促使残疾人和服务提供者参与其中。通过我们的经验，我们推荐基于社区的参与式研究，特别是协同设计，以激发创造性思维和服务设计。
