Often mental health solutions are developed and evaluated with limited input and ownership by those would receive them and those vital to their delivery

 

Solutions which neglect to incorporate the experiences, goals, and motivations of those directly responsible for long-term success are less likely to find traction. Additionally, outcomes measured as part of testing the solution’s impact may not address individual, local, or national priorities. This makes it more difficult to get the money needed to fund it, persuade front-line workers to provide it, and convince the community to take it up. Despite their effectiveness, these solutions usually wither away once testing is completed and the initial funding comes to an end.
 

Guidance on the development and testing of solutions to improve health mention the need for user involvement during the processes. Recommendations focus on issues such as the theoretical basis of the solution, how closely it can be delivered as intended outside of a controlled setting, and its potential for integration into existing systems. Fewer considerations are made as to whether or not there will be demand for and uptake of the solution by those who would receive and deliver it. There is no clear consensus on what meaningful engagement and partnership with community stakeholders practically means. Examples of involvement offered in guidance are mostly confined to limited activities, such as organising community meetings, recruitment, and dissemination. These examples do not highlight meaningful ways in which contributions impact the content, delivery or testing of solutions.