Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Evidence of co-creation practices in suicide prevention in government policy: a directed and summative content analysis
Contributor(s): Pearce, Tania  (author); Maple, Myfanwy  (author)orcid ; Wayland, Sarah  (author)orcid ; McKay, Kathy (author); Shakeshaft, Anthony (author); Woodward, Alan (author)
Publication Date: 2022-10-17
Open Access: Yes
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-14313-3
Handle Link:

Background In Australia, the collaborative involvement of stakeholders, especially those with lived experience in mental health and suicide prevention, has become important to government policy and practice at Federal and State levels. However, little is known about how governments translate this intention into frameworks of co-creation for policy, funding programs, service improvement, and research and evaluation. We investigated the extent to which publicly available government policies refer to collaborative practice using an established translation model.

Methods An exploratory directed and summative content analysis approach was used to analyse the contents of Federal (also known as Commonwealth), State and Territories policy documents on mental health and suicide prevention published in Australia between 2010 and 2021. The data was extracted, compared to an existing translation model, and summated to demonstrate the evidence of co-creation-related concepts between government and stakeholders.

Results 40 policy documents (nine at the Federal and 31 at the State and Territory level) were identified and included in the analysis. Only 63% of policy documents contained references to the concept of co-design. Six of the State policies contained references to the concept of co-production. Across all policy documents, there were no references to other concepts in the model adopted for this study, such as co-creation, co-ideation, co-implementation, and co-evaluation.

Conclusion Although the government at Federal, State and Territory levels appear to support collaborative practice through partnership and co-design, this study suggests a narrow approach to the theoretical model for co-creation at a policy level. Implications for both research and practice are discussed.

Publication Type: Journal Article
Source of Publication: BMC Public Health, 22(1), p. 1-12
Publisher: BioMed Central Ltd
Place of Publication: United Kingdom
ISSN: 1471-2458
Fields of Research (FoR) 2020: 420305 Health and community services
440903 Social program evaluation
Socio-Economic Objective (SEO) 2020: 200305 Mental health services
Peer Reviewed: Yes
HERDC Category Description: C1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journal
Appears in Collections:Journal Article
School of Health

Files in This Item:
2 files
File Description SizeFormat 
openpublished/EvidencePearceMapleWayland2022JournalArticle.pdfPublished version1.89 MBAdobe PDF
Download Adobe
Show full item record


checked on Feb 24, 2024

Page view(s)

checked on Jan 21, 2024


checked on Jan 21, 2024
Google Media

Google ScholarTM



This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons