Recovery and Renewal of Co-Design Approaches in Health: Protocol for a Realist Synthesis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly transformed the landscape of work and collaboration, impacting design research methodologies and techniques. Co-design approaches have been both negatively and positively affected by the pandemic, prompting a need to investigate and understand the extent of these impacts, changes, and adaptations, specifically in the health sector. Despite the challenges that the pandemic imposed on conducting co-design and related projects, it also encouraged a re-evaluation of co-design practices, leading to innovative solutions and techniques. Designers and researchers have explored alternative ways to engage stakeholders and end users, leveraging digital workshops and participatory digital platforms. These adaptations have the potential to enhance inclusivity, allowing for a wider range of individuals to contribute their perspectives and insights through co-design and thus contribute to healthcare change. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the impacts of the pandemic on co-design and related practices, focusing on co-design practices in healthcare that have been gained, adapted, or enhanced, with a specific focus on issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion. METHODS: The study uses a realist synthesis methodology to identify and analyze the effects of the pandemic on co-design approaches in health, drawing on a range of sources including first-person experiences, gray literature, and academic literature. A community of practice in co-design in health will be engaged to support this process. RESULTS: By examining the experiences and insights of professionals, practitioners, and communities who were actively involved in co-design and have navigated the challenges and opportunities of the pandemic, we can gain a deeper understanding of the strategies, tools, and techniques that have facilitated effective co-design during the pandemic, contributing to building resilience and capacity in co-design in health beyond the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: By involving community partners, community of practice (research), and design practitioners, we expect closer proximity to practice with capacity building occurring through the realist process, thus enabling rapid adoption and refinement of new techniques or insights that emerge. Ultimately, this research will contribute to the advancement of co-design methodologies and inform the future of co-design in health. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/58318.

From design to action: participatory approach to capacity building needs for local overdose response plans.

BACKGROUND: In response to the rise in opioid-related deaths, communities across Ontario have developed opioid or overdose response plans to address issues at the local level. Public Health Ontario (PHO) leads the Community Opioid / Overdose Capacity Building (COM-CAP) project, which aims to reduce overdose-related harms at the community level by working with communities to identify, develop, and evaluate capacity building supports for local needs around overdose planning. The 'From Design to Action' co-design workshop used a participatory design approach to engage communities in identifying the requirements for capacity building support. METHODS: A participatory approach (co-design) provided opportunity for collaborative discussion around capacity building needs at the community level. The co-design workshop included three structured collaborative activities to 1) prioritize scenarios that illustrated various challenges associated with community overdose response planning, 2) prioritize the challenges within each scenario and 3) prioritize the supports to address each of these challenges. It was conducted with fifty-two participants involved in opioid/overdose-related response plans in Ontario. Participatory materials were informed by the results of a situational assessment (SA) data gathering process, including survey, interview, and focus group data. A voting system, including dot stickers and discussion notes, was applied to identify priority supports and delivery mechanisms. RESULTS: At the workshop, key challenges and top-priority supports were identified, for development and implementation. The prioritized challenges were organized into five categories of capacity building supports addressing: 1) stigma & equity; 2) trust-based relationships, consensus building & on-going communication; 3) knowledge development & on-going access to information and data; 4) tailored strategies and plan adaptation to changing structures and local context; and 5) structural enablers and responsive governance. CONCLUSION: Using a participatory approach, the workshop provided an opportunity for sharing, generating, and mobilizing knowledge to address research-practice gaps at the community level for opioid response planning. The application of health design methods such as the 'From Design to Action' co-design workshop supports teams to gain a deeper understanding of needs for capacity building as well as illustrating the application of participatory approaches in identifying capacity building needs for complex public health issues such as the overdose crisis.

Web-Based Co-design in Health Care: Considerations for Renewed Participation.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the work environment to a new reality of remote work and virtual collaboration. This shift has occurred in various work settings with an impact on spaces, approaches, applied techniques, and tools. This has resulted in the broad use of virtual tools in the health care sector to avoid physical encounters and in-person interactions that will likely outlast the COVID-19 pandemic. Developing effective virtual approaches requires the knowledge and skills of using digital technologies collaboratively combined with a deep understanding of the context or contexts in which these approaches may be used. The implementation of virtual health design methods, including web-based co-design, has increased to meet the realities of COVID-19 restrictions and is likely to outlast them. Adapting the use of co-design methodologies to a virtual configuration requires rethinking methods of collaboration and communication, adapting to virtual environments, and creating new methods of engagement and facilitation. With this viewpoint, we reviewed the current work on co-design (in person and web based) to propose techniques for the design, planning, and implementation of web-based co-design. We propose 7 considerations that may enable web-based co-design projects in the health care sector. The key considerations that affect the success of a web-based co-design approach should be considered in the process of planning, developing, and conducting web-based co-design sessions. These include facilitation, collaboration, accessibility and equity, communication, sensemaking, tangible tools and games, and web-based research ethics. We illustrate this work with a case study of co-design for an emergency department discharge tool developed during the pandemic.

Supporting community overdose response planning in Ontario, Canada: Findings from a situational assessment.

BACKGROUND: Many communities across North America are coming together to develop comprehensive plans to address and respond to the escalating overdose crisis, largely driven by an increasingly toxic unregulated drug supply. As there is a need to build capacity for successful implementation, the objective of our mixed methods study was to identify the current planning and implementation practices, needs, and priority areas of support for community overdose response plans in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We used a situational assessment methodology to collect data on current planning and implementation practices, needs, and challenges related to community overdose response plans in Ontario, consisting of three components. Between November 2019 to February 2020, we conducted ten semi-structured key informant interviews, three focus groups with 25 participants, and administered an online survey (N = 66). Purposeful sampling was used to identify professionals involved in coordinating, supporting, or partnering on community overdose response plans in jurisdictions with relevant information for Ontario including other Canadian provinces and American states. Key informants included evaluators, representatives involved in centralised supports, as well as coordinators and partners on community overdose response plans. Focus group participants were coordinators or leads of community overdose response plans in Ontario. RESULTS: Sixty-six professionals participated in the study. The current planning and implementation practices of community overdose response plans varied in Ontario. Our analysis generated four overarching areas for needs and support for the planning and implementation of community overdose response plans: 1) data and information; 2) evidence and practice; 3) implementation/operational factors; and 4) partnership, engagement, and collaboration. Addressing stigma and equity within planning and implementation of community overdose response plans was a cross-cutting theme that included meaningful engagement of people with living and lived expertise and meeting the service needs of different populations and communities. CONCLUSIONS: Through exploring the needs and related supports for community overdose response plans in Ontario, we have identified key priority areas for building local capacity building to address overdose-related harms. Ongoing development and refinement, community partnership, and evaluation of our project will highlight the influence of our supports to advance the capacity, motivation, and opportunities of community overdose response plans.