Scoping Review of Co-Design in Mental Health Research: Essential Elements and Recommendations.

No quality appraisal of the included documents was done, so a reader cannot tell stronger work from weaker, and the review's own statements about benefits rest on what those documents reported rather than on any checked comparison. The documents were too different to compare with each other directly, and descriptions of what co-design actually involved were often vague or used different words for the same thing. Most of the literature came from the United Kingdom and Australia, and only English-language full texts were included. The recommendations come from research teams reflecting on their own projects, not from tested comparisons of one approach against another. The research team itself mixed lived experience and traditional academics, which the authors describe as both a strength and a limitation.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The work was funded by a Metro South Research Support Scheme grant (RSS_2023_082), co-funded by the Metro South Study, Education and Research Trust Account and Griffith University Health Group, with Metro South Health named as the funder. The paper gives no other information about the funder's role.

Do not read this as evidence that co-design works or that it improves research or care. None of the included documents was checked for quality, the projects were too different to compare, and the recommendations come from teams describing their own experiences rather than from tested comparisons. The authors themselves say researchers should not rely on a standardised approach to co-design.