Co‐Designing Wellbeing Initiatives With Rural Adolescents: What Works, What Doesn't, and Why

ISSUE ADDRESSED: Rural Australian youth face persistent mental health inequities yet are rarely meaningfully involved in designing the services meant to support them. This study aimed to explore through co-design what rural young people need and want in their community to support their mental health and wellbeing, with a secondary aim of evaluating the co-design process itself. METHODS: Three co-design workshops were conducted with 20 participants (13 young people aged 12-17 years and seven adults) in Kimba, South Australia, using the Double Diamond design framework and PRODUCES co-production principles. Workshops followed a Discover-Define-Develop-Deliver progression. Qualitative content analysis of workshop outputs and focus group data informed findings, alongside descriptive analysis of post-workshop feedback surveys. Study findings were subsequently interpreted through the PROSECO process evaluation framework, applied retrospectively. RESULTS: Co-designers prioritised practical, occupation-based wellbeing activities, ultimately prototyping a Basic Car Maintenance Workshop and a community Colour Fun Run. Most participants reported feeling able to contribute (72%) and that the process was helpful (96%). Five themes emerged from the process evaluation: factors influencing engagement, experiences of the co-design process, workshop environment and participation, impact and continuation, and voice and inclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Flexible, context-sensitive facilitation, anonymous contribution methods, and deliberate management of group dynamics were critical enablers of meaningful youth participation in this rural setting. SO WHAT?: Practical, occupation-based activities co-designed with rural youth can serve as accessible preventative mental health interventions. Embedding structured co-design evaluation frameworks prospectively would strengthen future practice and replication.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Health Promotion Journal of Australia
Published
2026-07-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/hpja.70221
Primary Topic
Participatory Visual Research Methods
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Co‐Designing Wellbeing Initiatives With Rural Adolescents: What Works, What Doesn't, and Why

Jacinta Brinsley, Shoshannah Kiriam, Sarah Seekamp, Jocelyn Kernot et al.
Health Promotion Journal of Australia
Participatory Visual Research Methods
article

Co‐Designing Wellbeing Initiatives With Rural Adolescents: What Works, What Doesn't, and Why

Jacinta Brinsley, Shoshannah Kiriam, Sarah Seekamp, Jocelyn Kernot, Katie Little, Carol Maher, Erin Lister, Kellie Hunt
article en

Abstract

ISSUE ADDRESSED: Rural Australian youth face persistent mental health inequities yet are rarely meaningfully involved in designing the services meant to support them. This study aimed to explore through co-design what rural young people need and want in their community to support their mental health and wellbeing, with a secondary aim of evaluating the co-design process itself. METHODS: Three co-design workshops were conducted with 20 participants (13 young people aged 12-17 years and seven adults) in Kimba, South Australia, using the Double Diamond design framework and PRODUCES co-production principles. Workshops followed a Discover-Define-Develop-Deliver progression. Qualitative content analysis of workshop outputs and focus group data informed findings, alongside descriptive analysis of post-workshop feedback surveys. Study findings were subsequently interpreted through the PROSECO process evaluation framework, applied retrospectively. RESULTS: Co-designers prioritised practical, occupation-based wellbeing activities, ultimately prototyping a Basic Car Maintenance Workshop and a community Colour Fun Run. Most participants reported feeling able to contribute (72%) and that the process was helpful (96%). Five themes emerged from the process evaluation: factors influencing engagement, experiences of the co-design process, workshop environment and participation, impact and continuation, and voice and inclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Flexible, context-sensitive facilitation, anonymous contribution methods, and deliberate management of group dynamics were critical enablers of meaningful youth participation in this rural setting. SO WHAT?: Practical, occupation-based activities co-designed with rural youth can serve as accessible preventative mental health interventions. Embedding structured co-design evaluation frameworks prospectively would strengthen future practice and replication.

Health Promotion Journal of AustraliaVol. 37(4)
Hunter Water (AU), The University of Adelaide (AU)
State of New Jersey Department of Human Services
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Participatory Visual Research Methods
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.