Co‐design and evaluation of a multidisciplinary teaching resource on mental health recovery involving people with lived experience

• Published in: Australian occupational therapy journal 2023-06, Vol.70 (3), p.354-365
• Main Authors: Arblaster, Karen, Mackenzie, Lynette, Buus, Niels, Chen, Timothy, Gill, Katherine, Gomez, Lisa, Hamilton, Deborah, Hancock, Nicola, McCloughen, Andrea, Nicholson, Margaret, Quinn, Yvette, River, Jo, Scanlan, Justin Newton, Schneider, Carl, Schweizer, Richard, Wells, Karen
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Academic disciplines; Academic staff; capability; consumers; co‐production; Experience; Health education; health professional students; Health promotion; Humans; Interdisciplinary aspects; Interviews; Medical personnel; Mental Disorders - psychology; Mental Health; Mental Health Recovery; Mental health services; Nurses; Occupational Therapy; Psychological distress; Recovery; Recovery (Medical); Scores; Students; Teaching; Teams; video
• ISSN: 0045-0766; 1440-1630
• DOI: 10.1111/1440-1630.12859

Background Students from a range of health disciplines need to learn from people with lived experience of mental distress and recovery to develop recovery capabilities for mental health practice. Aims The aims of this study are to describe the co‐design of a teaching resource, to explore the experience of people with lived experience during the resource development, and to evaluate the outcome of the resource on student recovery capabilities. Method Using a sequential mixed method, a project group consisting of six people with lived experience and 10 academics from five health disciplines was convened to co‐develop teaching resources. People with lived experience met independently without researchers on several occasions to decide on the key topics and met with the research team monthly. The teaching resource was used in mental health subjects for two health professional programmes, and the Capabilities for Recovery‐Oriented Practice Questionnaire (CROP‐Q) was used before and after to measure any change in student recovery capabilities. Scores were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. The people with lived experience were also interviewed about their experience of being involved in constructing the teaching resources. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analysed thematically. Results The finished resource consisted of 28 short videos and suggested teaching plans. Occupational therapy and nursing student scores on the CROP‐Q prior to using the educational resource (n = 33) were 68 (median) and post scores (n = 28) were 74 (median), indicating a statistically significant improvement in recovery capability (P = 0.04). Lived experience interview themes were (i) the importance of lived experience in education; (ii) personal benefits of participating; (iii) co‐design experience; and (iv) creating the resource. Conclusion Co‐design of teaching resources with people with lived experience was pivotal to the success and quality of the final product, and people with lived experience described personal benefits of participating in resource development. More evidence to demonstrate the use of the CROP‐Q in teaching and practice is needed.