A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of co-designed, in-person, mental health interventions for reducing anxiety and depression symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Co-design is recommended in mental health fields and has been associated with improved intervention efficacy. Despite its growing popularity, syntheses of evidence on the effectiveness of co-designed interventions are scarce, and little is known about their impact on anxiety and depression. METHODS: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to consolidate evidence on the effectiveness of in-person, co-designed mental health interventions for reducing anxiety and depression symptoms. An exhaustive search was conducted across six electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and ProQuest) and grey literature. Criteria for inclusion comprised studies utilizing randomized or quasi-randomized methods, implementing non-digital/in-person, co-designed interventions for mental health enhancement, and assessing anxiety and/or depression. Intervention impacts were evaluated using random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: The review identified 20 studies, with only three using the term 'co-design'. Other terminologies included 'co-developed' (n = 2), 'co-produced' (n = 2), and 'CBPR' (n = 11). Seventeen studies exhibited moderate risk of bias, while three demonstrated high risk. Meta-analyses demonstrated a moderate non-significant effect size of 0.5 (95 % CI: -0.8, 1.08; p = 0.08) on depression outcomes, and a small non-significant effect size of 0.12 (95 % CI: -0.1, 0.33; p = 0.23) on anxiety outcomes. LIMITATIONS: The majority of studies lacked sufficient statistical power to detect between-group differences. Following GRADE criteria, confidence in estimates was low. CONCLUSIONS: Notwithstanding widespread enthusiasm for co-design, the current evidence base is inadequate to confirm the impact of in-person, co-designed mental health interventions on anxiety and depression. More full-scale evaluation trials of higher quality are urgently needed, along with uniform terminology and measurement.

Kailo: a systemic approach to addressing the social determinants of young people's mental health and wellbeing at the local level.

The mental health and wellbeing of children and young people is deteriorating. It is increasingly recognised that mental health is a systemic issue, with a wide range of contributing and interacting factors. However, the vast majority of attention and resources are focused on the identification and treatment of mental health disorders, with relatively scant attention on the social determinants of mental health and wellbeing and investment in preventative approaches. Furthermore, there is little attention on how the social determinants manifest or may be influenced at the local level, impeding the design of contextually nuanced preventative approaches. This paper describes a major research and design initiative called Kailo that aims to support the design and implementation of local and contextually nuanced preventative strategies to improve children's and young people's mental health and wellbeing. The Kailo Framework involves structured engagement with a wide range of local partners and stakeholders - including young people, community partners, practitioners and local system leaders - to better understand local systemic influences and support programmes of youth-centred and evidence-informed co-design, prototyping and testing. It is hypothesised that integrating different sources of knowledge, experience, insight and evidence will result in better embedded, more sustainable and more impactful strategies that address the social determinants of young people's mental health and wellbeing at the local level.