Community-based participatory-research through co-design: supporting collaboration from all sides of disability.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Co-designing a telepractice journey map with disability customers and clinicians: Partnering with users to understand challenges from their perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Telepractice has the potential to align with the directive to reduce inequalities by United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 10. Telepractice additionally addresses a national digital health strategic plan for accessible digitally enabled models of care. To plan improvements, it is essential to understand the experience of telepractice for people with disability, which may be achieved through an approach such as journey mapping. The current article provides both a disability-specific case study and a methodological guide for the inclusion of customers and clinicians in the meaningful redevelopment of services. The Perth, Australia-based case study aimed to gain insights into the experience of telepractice for people with disability. The methodological aim describes using co-design to produce a journey map in collaboration with customers and clinicians, for potential replication in a wide range of health and social care contexts. METHOD: Interview transcripts gathered from a cohort of customer participants (n = 17) were used to inform the journey map. A group of customers (n = 5) and clinicians plus one manager (n = 5) distributed the findings onto a customer experience journey map during a co-design workshop. The journey map describes the emotional experience and actions taken, along five phases of a timeline through telepractice service interactions: (1) before, (2) selecting telepractice, (3) telepractice preparation, (4) during telepractice sessions and (5) after. RESULTS: A journey map visualisation of customer experiences was produced that identified strengths of telepractice service delivery (flexibility) while noting challenges (with technology) as opportunities for improvement. The consensus of participants was the desire to have access to telepractice currently and in the future, in addition to in-person delivery. CONCLUSION: These findings are valuable in the context of advocating for the incorporation of customers and clinicians through co-design workshops in the content analysis and creation of a journey map that is representative of the lived experience of accessing telepractice services. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The paper forms part of a larger co-design process that included customer participants throughout the design and planning of the project, inclusion of a peer researcher and the co-designers in the workshops, journey map and this article production.