Codesign of Mental Health Interventions With Young People From Racially Minoritised Populations: A Systematic Review of Methods and Outcomes

Abstract

Background

Codesign of mental health interventions entails the active involvement of end users and other stakeholders in various stages of the developmental process. This has emerged as a promising approach for developing evidence-based mental health interventions aligned with minoritised populations' needs and preferences. However, key questions remain about the methods and outcomes of codesign studies focused on young people from racially minoritised groups. The current review aimed to explore the codesign approaches and phases used in developing mental health interventions with young people from racially minoritised populations, analyse the codesign outcomes for participants and examine the contextual enablers and barriers impacting the codesign process.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Global Health, Web of Science and Scopus. Citations and references of included studies were also checked. Study quality and reporting of codesign were assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tools and the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public-2 checklist. Data were synthesised using narrative synthesis, content analysis and meta-synthesis.

Results

Eighteen eligible studies reported various codesign and participatory approaches, including community-based participatory research, co-production, human-centred design, youth and family codesign model, community engagement research, community development model, participatory evaluation model, participatory research design approach and community participatory research partnership. The most common codesign stages followed were exploring problems and solutions, ideating and creating, and refining. In terms of outcomes, the reported benefits of codesign for young people included personal development and well-being, enhanced knowledge and career skills, and better mental health outcomes. Codesigning with youth and other stakeholders (e.g., family members, other caregivers, community members and practitioners) also improved the research projects by identifying specific problems, increasing participant recruitment and enhancing data collection. Additionally, other stakeholders gained a platform to share their expertise, understand youth mental health and build capacity through codesign. Regarding enablers and barriers, reducing power differentials, fostering community engagement and collaboration with other stakeholders facilitated the codesign process, whereas barriers included lack of resources, power imbalances, lack of rapport building and selection bias.

Conclusions

This review outlines the potential benefits of codesign for developing mental health interventions for racially minoritised youth. These benefits include continuous stakeholder engagement to understand community needs better, reducing power differentials and building trust through culturally tailored activities and communication strategies.

Patient and Public Contribution

Patients and the public did not contribute directly to this review though the reviewed literature was specifically concerned with participatory research activities.