Rights statement: This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in The Design Journal on 31/05/2019, available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14606925.2019.1595439
Accepted author manuscript, 6.63 MB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Health and Wellbeing
T2 - Challenging Co- Design for Difficult Conversations, Successes and Failures of the Leapfrog Approach
AU - Whitham, Roger
AU - Cruickshank, Leon
AU - Coupe, Gemma
AU - Wareing, Laura
AU - Pérez, David
N1 - This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in The Design Journal on 31/05/2019, available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14606925.2019.1595439
PY - 2019/5/31
Y1 - 2019/5/31
N2 - Conversations are an everyday element of health and social care practice,and improving them could lead to widespread positive impacts on care provision. We present three initiatives to improve difficult conversation through three case studies, each using co-design to produce tools for later use by practitioners. The approach taken is knowingly risky, as tools can be difficult to co-design and difficult to encourage others to use, leading to failures as well as successes. Alongside specific empirical insights from the case studies we discuss the benefits of co-designing flexible tools for ongoing use and adaptation by practitioners, and the implications of this approach for the sustainability and impact of co-design initiatives.
AB - Conversations are an everyday element of health and social care practice,and improving them could lead to widespread positive impacts on care provision. We present three initiatives to improve difficult conversation through three case studies, each using co-design to produce tools for later use by practitioners. The approach taken is knowingly risky, as tools can be difficult to co-design and difficult to encourage others to use, leading to failures as well as successes. Alongside specific empirical insights from the case studies we discuss the benefits of co-designing flexible tools for ongoing use and adaptation by practitioners, and the implications of this approach for the sustainability and impact of co-design initiatives.
U2 - 10.1080/14606925.2019.1595439
DO - 10.1080/14606925.2019.1595439
M3 - Journal article
VL - 22
SP - 575
EP - 587
JO - The Design Journal
JF - The Design Journal
SN - 1460-6925
IS - Suppl. 1
ER -