ABSTRACT
Background Self-harm prevalence is rising, yet service users encounter stigmatising attitudes and feel let down when they seek professional help. Co-design activities can potentially enable development of more acceptable and effective services.
Objectives To map existing literature describing how people with lived experience of self-harm have engaged in co-designing self-harm interventions, understand barriers and facilitators to this engagement and how meaningfulness of co-design has been evaluated.
Inclusion criteria Studies where individuals with lived experience of self-harm (first-hand or carer) have co-designed self-harm interventions.
Methods In accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology we scoped PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, ClinicalTrials.gov and relevant websites on 24.12.22. A protocol was published online (http://dx.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/P52UD). Results were screened at title and abstract level, then full-text level by two researchers independently. Pre-specified data was extracted, charted, and sorted into themes.
Results We included twenty co-designed interventions across mobile health, educational settings, prisons, and emergency departments. Involvement varied from designing content to multi-stage involvement in planning, delivery, and dissemination. Included papers described the contribution of 110 female and 26 male co-designers. Few contributors identified as from a minoritized ethnic or LGBTQ+ group. Six studies evaluated how meaningfully people with lived experience were engaged in co-design: by documenting the impact of contributions on intervention design, or through post-design reflections. Barriers included difficulties recruiting inclusively, making time for meaningful engagement in stretched services, and safeguarding concerns for co-designers. Explicit processes for ensuring safety and wellbeing, flexible schedules, and adequate funding facilitated co-design.
Conclusions To realise the potential of co-design to improve self-harm interventions, people with lived experience must be representative of those who use services. This requires processes that reassure potential contributors and referrers that co-designers will be safeguarded, remunerated, and their contributions used and valued.
Strengths and limitations of this study
Comprehensive search strategy with no restriction on publication date to capture breadth of evidence
All papers screened at title/abstract and full-text level by two researchers independently
Protocol uploaded to the Open Science Framework prior to conducting scoping review
Did not check all published self-harm intervention papers for evidence of co-design, so instances where co-design was not mentioned in the title or abstract could have been missed
Only the development paper for each intervention was included – follow up papers were excluded at full-text level which may have overlooked additional co-design details
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
http://dx.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/P52UD
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Scoping review protocol, full search strategy, and example search strategy are available via the Open Science Framework.
