Co-Designing a Web-Based Decision Aid Tool for Employees Disclosure of Mental Health Conditions: A Participatory Study Design Using Employee and Organizational Preferences.

decision aid tool employee disclosure mental health web-based

Journal

JMIR formative research
ISSN: 2561-326X
Titre abrégé: JMIR Form Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101726394

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 Nov 2020
Historique:
received: 09 08 2020
accepted: 27 09 2020
revised: 15 09 2020
entrez: 6 11 2020
pubmed: 7 11 2020
medline: 7 11 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Decisions of whether to disclose mental health conditions are extremely personal and require the consideration of multiple factors associated with the disclosure process (eg, weighing the risks and benefits). Decision aid tools help people make these complex decisions. Such an aid needs to be confidential, easily accessible, and easy to use with the potential to access the tool on multiple occasions. Web programs are well suited to meet these requirements and, if properly developed, can provide feasible, accessible, affordable, and effective workplace interventions. This study aims to gain insights from potential end users, in this case both employees and organizations, into what type of components including language, style, and content would avoid potential stigma and ensure that elements of clear value for users would be built into a web-based decision aid tool that aims to assist employees in making decisions about the disclosure of their mental health condition at work. A participatory design approach was used to allow developers, researchers, experts, and end users to collaborate in co-designing the tool. During the user research phase of the development of the web-based tool, a participatory design workshop approach was selected as a part of a larger study of focus groups. Australian employees and managers in rural, suburban, and urban locations participated in an exploratory qualitative study involving participatory workshops designed to elicit their perspectives and preferences for a decision aid tool. A total of 2 workshops were conducted with 13 participants. The majority were from a transport company (9/13, 69%), male (8/13, 62%), and employed full time (11/13, 85%). Six employees had previous experience disclosing their own mental health condition, and 7 were in a supervisory role and had previously been disclosed to. In any co-design development, there are certain trade-offs that need to be made between the views of experts, developers, end users, and the available budget. In this specific instance of a very delicate, personal decision, the end users provided valuable design insights into key areas such as language, and they were very antipathetic to a key feature, the avatar, which was thought to be desirable by experts and developers. Findings including aspects of the tool where all stakeholders were in agreement, aspects where some stakeholders disagreed and adaptations were implemented, where disagreements could not be implemented because of financial constraints, and misalignment between stakeholders and how to decide on a balance were shared. The co-design with a lived experience approach is useful for contributing much to the design, language, and features. The key in this study was balancing the needs of the workers and the potential impact for the managers and organizations, while ensuring legislation and regulation requirements were upheld.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Decisions of whether to disclose mental health conditions are extremely personal and require the consideration of multiple factors associated with the disclosure process (eg, weighing the risks and benefits). Decision aid tools help people make these complex decisions. Such an aid needs to be confidential, easily accessible, and easy to use with the potential to access the tool on multiple occasions. Web programs are well suited to meet these requirements and, if properly developed, can provide feasible, accessible, affordable, and effective workplace interventions.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
This study aims to gain insights from potential end users, in this case both employees and organizations, into what type of components including language, style, and content would avoid potential stigma and ensure that elements of clear value for users would be built into a web-based decision aid tool that aims to assist employees in making decisions about the disclosure of their mental health condition at work.
METHODS METHODS
A participatory design approach was used to allow developers, researchers, experts, and end users to collaborate in co-designing the tool. During the user research phase of the development of the web-based tool, a participatory design workshop approach was selected as a part of a larger study of focus groups. Australian employees and managers in rural, suburban, and urban locations participated in an exploratory qualitative study involving participatory workshops designed to elicit their perspectives and preferences for a decision aid tool.
RESULTS RESULTS
A total of 2 workshops were conducted with 13 participants. The majority were from a transport company (9/13, 69%), male (8/13, 62%), and employed full time (11/13, 85%). Six employees had previous experience disclosing their own mental health condition, and 7 were in a supervisory role and had previously been disclosed to. In any co-design development, there are certain trade-offs that need to be made between the views of experts, developers, end users, and the available budget. In this specific instance of a very delicate, personal decision, the end users provided valuable design insights into key areas such as language, and they were very antipathetic to a key feature, the avatar, which was thought to be desirable by experts and developers. Findings including aspects of the tool where all stakeholders were in agreement, aspects where some stakeholders disagreed and adaptations were implemented, where disagreements could not be implemented because of financial constraints, and misalignment between stakeholders and how to decide on a balance were shared.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The co-design with a lived experience approach is useful for contributing much to the design, language, and features. The key in this study was balancing the needs of the workers and the potential impact for the managers and organizations, while ensuring legislation and regulation requirements were upheld.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33155982
pii: v4i11e23337
doi: 10.2196/23337
pmc: PMC7679208
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e23337

Informations de copyright

©Elizabeth Stratton, Isabella Choi, Dorian Peters, Rafael A Calvo, Samuel B Harvey, Nicholas Glozier. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (http://formative.jmir.org), 06.11.2020.

Références

J Occup Rehabil. 2014 Dec;24(4):732-46
pubmed: 24604575
JMIR Ment Health. 2018 Jan 23;5(1):e9
pubmed: 29362208
PLoS One. 2017 Dec 21;12(12):e0189904
pubmed: 29267334
Front Psychiatry. 2018 Dec 19;9:684
pubmed: 30618865
JMIR Ment Health. 2018 Apr 25;5(2):e30
pubmed: 29695371
Trends Cogn Sci. 2012 Sep;16(9):476-83
pubmed: 22898207
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117
pubmed: 24047204
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2016;12:157-79
pubmed: 26652054
J Med Internet Res. 2012 Jun 22;14(3):e91
pubmed: 22743581
Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2018 Aug;27(4):346-356
pubmed: 28073386
BMJ Open. 2016 Feb 23;6(2):e009961
pubmed: 26908523
Patient Educ Couns. 2013 Jun;91(3):329-36
pubmed: 23357414
JMIR Hum Factors. 2016 Jan 28;3(1):e4
pubmed: 27026210
J Affect Disord. 2010 Jul;124(1-2):207-10
pubmed: 20004023
Br J Psychiatry. 2012 Mar;200(3):182-3
pubmed: 22383764
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jan 28;(1):CD001431
pubmed: 24470076
BMC Psychiatry. 2012 Feb 16;12:11
pubmed: 22339944
J Occup Rehabil. 2015 Jun;25(2):403-11
pubmed: 25427673
Br J Psychiatry. 2013 Nov;203(5):350-7
pubmed: 24072755
J Med Internet Res. 2013 Nov 15;15(11):e247
pubmed: 24240579
Lancet. 2009 Jun 6;373(9679):1928-30
pubmed: 19501729
Lancet. 2013 Jan 5;381(9860):55-62
pubmed: 23083627
J R Soc Med. 2010 Mar;103(3):83-6
pubmed: 20200178
J Health Commun. 2010;15 Suppl 2:197-210
pubmed: 20845204
Games Health J. 2012 Feb;1(1):21-8
pubmed: 26196429

Auteurs

Elizabeth Stratton (E)

Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Isabella Choi (I)

Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Dorian Peters (D)

Dyson School of Design Engineering, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.

Rafael A Calvo (RA)

Dyson School of Design Engineering, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
School of Electrical and Information Engineering, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Samuel B Harvey (SB)

School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Black Dog Institute, Sydney, Australia.
St George Hospital, Sydney, Australia.

Nicholas Glozier (N)

Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Classifications MeSH