How Live Music Can Be Delivered to Children and Young People to Support Their Mental Health and Wellbeing: Co-Produced Solutions and Key Findings from a Series of Intergenerational Multi-Disciplinary Workshops

Abstract

Background: Children and young people’s (CYP) mental health is a policy priority, with rates of poor mental health reported to be as much as one in five across the UK. Traditional mental health support services cannot meet demand, and new approaches are needed. The creative arts can be an effective tool in supporting mental health. However, little is known about how live music can be used to support CYP mental health and wellbeing. We facilitated three, two-day intergenerational and multi-disciplinary workshops to co-produce ideas about how live music could be delivered to this end. Results: Workshops were held in three locations in Scotland, attended by a mixture of CYP, youth workers, mental health practitioners, teachers, and musicians (n = 91). A range of co-created solutions were generated including a live music festival designed for and with CYP and free gig tickets. Barriers and facilitators for CYP accessing live music were also identified. Furthermore, these workshops were found to increase confidence for musicians in delivering live music events to CYP, and CYP felt their voices were heard in their design of the delivery. Conclusions: This study presents novel co-created solutions about how live music can be delivered to CYP that need to be tried and tested in future research. It also provides key insights for musicians, live music providers, and people supporting CYP about the best approach to delivering live music for CYP.

1. Introduction

Children and young people’s (8–25 years) mental health is a public health priority across the UK and internationally [1,2]. Rates of poor mental health and wellbeing among children and young people are reported to be as high as one in five in England [3], with similar rates found in Scotland [4], other parts of the UK, and Europe [5].

It has been well documented that levels of available support are inadequate [6] and that alternative prevention and intervention approaches are needed. A recent review by the World Health Organization recognises the potential of the creative arts in supporting mental health and wellbeing [7]. This is also reflected in recent policy documents [8]. Listening to music is a common pass-time amongst young people, supporting them to explore and assert their identity [9] and connect with others, as well as regulate their emotions [10]. In recent years, there has been a variety of programmes developed to involve children and young people in music making (for example, Big Noise, Tinderbox, etc. [11,12]), but less so as listeners or audience members. Research in this area has also primarily focused upon the benefits experienced by children and young people engaged in music making, or on the benefits of listening to music within a clinical context [13], such as in oncology hospital wards [14,15]. Other research that has considered the benefits of listening to live music as audience members has concentrated on older populations [16]. Little is known about what children and young people would want from a live music experience as audience members or how they would like to engage in live music. Additionally, musicians whose primary role is as a performer can lack confidence and experience in engaging with a younger audience.

Live music is often delivered with an adult population in mind, taking place in adult spaces that may be inaccessible for children and young people, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, those living in rural locations, or individuals with additional support needs. Previous research by the authors identified that experiencing live music has the potential to be beneficial to children and young people’s mental health and wellbeing [17], but that there needs to be consideration of how best to deliver this.

Best practice in research and intervention development indicate that all relevant stakeholders are included in the process to ensure that it is acceptable to and meaningful for those accessing and delivering it [18,19,20,21]. The Scottish Government approach to service design also reflects this, setting out that service users should be actively involved in the design process [22].

In this project, partners (Children in Scotland, Scottish Ensemble, and the University of Stirling) aimed to work with children and young people (aged 8–25 years), musicians, live music venue providers, youth workers, educators, and mental health practitioners to co-produce solutions that enable children and young people to engage with live music experiences to support their mental health and wellbeing. Our emphasis was on collaboratively developing ideas for future testing, rather than directly providing an intervention.

This paper begins by outlining the approach we used to facilitate and deliver three intergenerational co-production workshops, before presenting the solutions that were generated, providing evidence to support the appeal of these novel approaches. Evaluation data further illustrate how we met our main three objectives:

• The creation of co-produced ideas of how live music can be delivered to children and young people to support their mental health and wellbeing.
• That people delivering youth music develop their skills and confidence in working with children and young people.
• To enable children and young people to influence or lead youth music opportunities, and have their voice heard when it comes to design and delivery.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Co-Production Design

Much has been written about co-production in recent years [23]. Co-production approaches range from consultation and participation to collaboration and partnership approaches [24,25]. The NIHR’s six principles of a co-production approach to research were used to guide our co-production activity [23]. These principles refer to engaging with people in reciprocal relationships, and sharing power (sharing of power, including all perspectives and skills, respecting, and valuing the knowledge of all those working together on the research, reciprocity—building and maintaining relationships, joint understanding) [23]. Furthermore, and complementing this, a children’s rights-based approach to co-production was adopted, respecting children’s right to have their views heard, and to share power with other adult stakeholders in decision making [18].

This project aimed to bring together a wide range of stakeholders, including children and young people, to work together to co-produce ideas and knowledge. To achieve this the project team delivered three two-day workshops (referred to as Innovation Labs).

2.2. Setting

The Innovation Labs were delivered in three different geographical locations across Scotland (Stirling, Inverness, and Glasgow), incorporating a range of different communities (urban, semi-urban, and rural) and demographics. Each of these locations included areas with high levels of socio-economic deprivation. The performance venues selected in these settings were the following: The Tollbooth in Stirling, Eden Court in Inverness, and Platform in Easterhouse, Glasgow. This was based on a range of factors including suitability for the workshop, accessibility, and geographic location.

2.3. Sample

Our target population for the workshops was children and young people between the ages of 8 and 25, musicians, live music venue providers, youth workers, educators, and mental health practitioners. We anticipated each Innovation Lab to comprise around 25 participants, with children and young people (aged 8–25 years) making up two-thirds of the participants. We aimed to include as diverse a group of participants as possible but were restricted to those able to attend and who self-selected via our contact with different organisations. Children in Scotland does not collect ethnicity data for short-term engagement and while a range of additional support needs were reported by participants, because of the relatively small number, these would fall below the minimum threshold for reporting statistics guidance [26].

2.4. Recruitment

Children in Scotland (the national network organisation improving children’s lives) led recruitment, using convenience sampling to reach out to schools and community groups close to each of the venues [27]. This approach targeted groups including local authority youth work teams, youth clubs, CAMHS (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services), schools, and arts charities. Venue providers were also asked to support recruitment, building on their existing community networks. It was a closed recruitment process to ensure that all children and young people attending had support from a community partner, as the project team’s relationship with participants was limited to the duration of the event.

2.5. Ethics

Information sheets were created for adult and youth participants, with clear information about the project and the focus of the workshops to ensure informed consent from all participants. Ethical approval was granted from the University of Stirling General Ethics Committee (ref number: 12701).

2.6. Workshops: Innovation Labs

The aim of the Innovation Labs was to create a safe, productive environment to bring together stakeholders, supporting them to be able to contribute, lead discussions, and be heard. Each of the two-day workshops followed a similar pre-defined format, with enough flexibility built into the schedule to accommodate the needs of the individuals within the groups.

The formats and timing of the sessions were devised to ensure that live music experiences were at the heart of the Innovation Labs and four separate live music segments were performed by Scottish Ensemble musicians across the two days. Partners were keen for participants and musicians to explore the act of listening to live music as an interactive experience. This involved exploring the physical dynamics of the space, encouraging audience members to move around, trying out different activities and positions during the performances. Brief feedback was invited immediately after the sessions to consider how audience members engaged and interacted with the performers.

Participants were invited to take part in various creative group activities across the two days to support participants to work together, share their experiences of live music, identify different barriers to accessing live music, and co-create possible solutions to support more children and young people to attend live music performances.

On arrival, the whole group took part in bespoke icebreaker activities, to help them get to know and build connections with other participants. Participants were then split up into different work groups. We tried to ensure a mix of adults and children and young people in each group, as well as a mix of professionals from different backgrounds. To help the group bond, feel a sense of cohesion, and support them to work together, we asked each group to create their own band name. Groups then worked collaboratively through a range of activity-based tasks that combined drawing and discussion, to explore their experience of live music, and identify barriers and enablers to attending live music events. This culminated in creating posters to explain their ideas, which they then presented to the whole group, after which all participants at the lab were encouraged to vote for their favourite ones using sticky dots.

2.7. Data Collection

Researchers from the University of Stirling developed a variety of data collection tools, designed to be engaging for the children and young people, accessible, and which would provide evidence for how well the Innovation Labs met the project aims and objectives. Methods included a graffiti wall, “on-the-street” style vox pops (short semi-structured interviews), and “This or That” games (physical feedback), as well as pre- and post-workshop surveys for adults. The mix of feedback opportunities offered flexibility to the participants to participate in whichever option(s) they felt most comfortable engaging in. This range of methods was designed to be inclusive, allowing all participants to engage with whichever method(s) they chose to take part in, with no need for adaptation for differing ages or abilities.

Graffiti walls are a common evaluation tool used in studies conducted with children and young people [24] that involve large surfaces which can be written or drawn on in an informal way. Graffiti walls can respond to the “busyness” of participants, allowing for quick or short responses or longer, more in-depth reflections.

Prompts were used to elicit responses to questions related to participants’ experience of taking part in the workshop and sharing ideas about what was enjoyable. The wall was also used for creative drawing, writing, and expression [25], supporting children and young people to feel ownership of the space and the workshop. Writing or drawing on the graffiti wall was unobserved, and anonymous by choice, enabling contributors to add their feedback more freely if expressing negative reflections [28] or feeling self-conscious about their writing, drawing, or spelling ability.

The “This or That” games mimicked a common video format on video-led social media platforms Tik Tok and Instagram whereby a group of participants face a camera and dance/skip/jog to either the left or right side of the screen to answer a question, where left or right corresponds with an “answer”. This data collection tool was chosen because it is participatory, fun, creative, and recognisable, allowing participants to move and “vote” however they feel comfortable. The game was video recorded to collect responses.

Vox pop, or on-the-street style interviews, often seen on video-led social media platforms, were conducted by a researcher throughout the two-day workshops. This style of interview was adopted as it allowed interviews to be fun, informal, and was suited to being conducted in a public space. Each participant’s session lasted less than 3 min, with questions related to what they liked, what had worked well for them, and whether they thought live music could help young people’s mental health. Children and young people were able to choose if they wanted to be interviewed individually, or in small groups. Interviews were recorded on an encrypted and password protected Dictaphone.

Surveys were disseminated by email to musicians and professionals for completion before and after the workshops to assess how capable and confident they felt delivering live music events for children. Musicians participating in several of the labs were asked to complete a survey before the first lab and at the end of the last lab. Responses were collated at the conclusion of the final lab.

2.8. Analysis

Data from the various evaluation methods was gathered and analysed separately. A narrative synthesis of the results is presented below using the project outcomes as a priori headings [29].

Qualitative audio data from practitioner interviews and surveys and interviews from children and young people was analysed following a framework analysis approach [30]. Audio data were transcribed, and transcriptions of qualitative survey data entered into an Excel framework. Project outcomes were used as “a priori headings” within the framework to guide charting and analysis, ensuring that the data were organised effectively to support retrieval and exploration [31,32]. Data were interpreted according to these headings, with analysis focusing on participants’ experience of taking part in a co-production workshop.

Quantitative data from practitioner surveys were collated and recorded as percentages, and, where possible, tabulated to highlight changes between pre- and post-workshop outcomes.

Binary voting (yes/no) data from interactive “this-or-that” games was counted by observing the game footage and recorded as aggregate percentages from across the three labs.

The comments from each graffiti wall were tabulated in an Excel sheet according to the prompts to capture themes and sentiments [33]. Any notable outliers or sentiments were flagged.

3. Results

3.1. Participants

Over the three Innovation Labs, 91 attendees took part, including children and young people, musicians performing at the labs, music and arts youth engagement workers, youth support workers, community education workers, mental health practitioners, and teachers (

Table 1. Participants.

	Location
Participant Type	Inverness	Stirling	Glasgow	Total
Children and young people (8–17)	13	11	18	42
Older young people (18–25 years)	3	0	0	3
Professional—Music and Arts	7	7	7	21
Professional—Mental health	2	2	0	4
Professional—Youth work	4	6	3	13
Professional—Education	2	0	1	3
Professional—Other	1	2	2	5

). Not all participants took part in both lab days.

3.2. Outcome Measures

3.2.1. The Creation of Co-Produced Ideas of How Live Music Can Be Delivered to Children and Young People to Support Their Mental Health and Wellbeing

Each group at the Innovation Labs was tasked with creating their own unique project idea about how live music could be made more accessible for children and young people in a way that would support their mental health and wellbeing. The full list of project ideas is available in Supplementary Document S1: Project Ideas. At the end of each workshop, participants were invited to vote by placing stickers on the posters of the ideas they liked best. This allowed the project team to identify the ideas and project elements that were most favoured by attendees.

The most popular ideas and elements were the following:

• Free or heavily subsidised tickets
  Family-friendly music activities during the day
• Youth-led programming or coordination of festivals and venues
  Live music events that included opportunities for young people to get involved in music-making
• Festivals offering a range of music styles
  Apps to support young people to connect with venues and live music events
• Festivals and gigs in people’s local area
  Involvement of businesses from the local community
• Free and/or specialist transport to and from venues
  Events that involved big names and emerging musicians
• Safe and quiet spaces for young people at music events
  Live streaming of live music events

There were similar ideas which emerged from the different groups, and there was significant interest in setting up opportunities to take part in live music festivals. There were different variations around this theme, with some reflecting the local context in terms of location (e.g., Stirling Castle; the Fort Car Park (a large local shopping retail park)). Some of the groups considered how the setting could also be used to support mental health and wellbeing as well as the music itself, with one suggesting that having the festival in a forest would also allow for connection with nature, and several groups said it would be important to have chill-out spaces or quiet zones available.

The ideas generated reflected the rich group discussions around the barriers children and young people experience in accessing live music events, and things that can be helpful or could be put in place to overcome these. For example, many groups stressed that transport and ticket costs should be a primary consideration in planning any event, as these were often one of the main barriers to young people wishing to access live music. Other barriers identified included consideration of their safety and wellbeing, particularly in relation to adult spaces where alcohol is being consumed. It was also highlighted that events and gigs are often scheduled at night, and that age restrictions can mean children cannot go, or they must have an adult who is willing and able to take them. Expectations around having to listen in a certain way (e.g., standing), and not being able to freely move around or leave if they wanted were also noted as inhibitors. Negotiating crowds, the volume of the music, and contained physical spaces were highlighted as especially challenging for children and young people with additional support needs, or pre-existing anxiety/mental health issues. A full list of the barriers and enablers identified is available in Supplementary Document S2: Barriers and Enablers.

3.2.2. People Delivering Youth Music Develop Their Skills and Confidence

Practitioners were asked to complete pre- (n = 29) and post- (n = 17) workshop surveys and participate in short semi-structured interviews on a voluntary basis (n = 14). Data from surveys and short semi-structured interviews highlighted that, in the main, practitioners found the workshops positive, reporting them to have been an opportunity to develop their skills and confidence, expand their professional networks, and learn more about co-production approaches and engaging with young people.

Skills and Confidence

Survey data collected demonstrated increased feelings of confidence working with children and young people across the cohort (

Table 2. How confident do you currently feel working with children and young people? (%).

	Pre-Workshop (n = 29) %	Post-Workshop (n = 17) %
Extremely confident	24.14	35.29
Very confident	37.93	47.06
Somewhat confident	31.03	17.65
Not so confident	6.9	0
Not at all confident	0	0

). Responses indicated that while most participants felt a high degree of confidence (62%) working with children and young people, 37.93% expressed that they felt somewhat confident or not so confident. Post-workshop surveys demonstrated that following participation in the Innovation Labs, 82.35% of professionals felt either “extremely confident” or “very confident”.

Data collected from workshop surveys also demonstrated that as a result of participating in the labs, most practitioners felt increased feelings of confidence related to leading or contributing to a live music event or workshop involving children (

Table 3. Do you feel more confident to lead or contribute to a live music workshop or event involving children?

	Post-Workshop %
Much more capable	11.76
More capable	41.18
Neutral	47.06
Less capable	0
Much less capable	0

).

Practitioners reflected on the skills development and increased confidence that came from participating in the labs. Responders noted the labs gave them more confidence in co-design approaches and allowed them to develop their communication skills. One participant also highlighted that it afforded them an

“…opportunity to develop skills in facilitation, and encouragement when working with children and young people so to create an environment where they feel comfortable to share their views”.

Adult participant 1 (AP1)

Expanding Networks

Many of the practitioners reflected on the positive benefits of being able to work alongside a wide range of professionals throughout the labs, and the strengthening of their networks with other local practitioners. They noted that often work in this area can become siloed, and collaborations can be challenging to set up and maintain; however, there is a real need for ongoing interdisciplinary partnerships.

“We have been talking about keeping in touch and maybe getting some of our young people involved in his organisation to have a national voice and that that would make a difference… that would be valuable because I know that young people want to make a difference”.

(AP2)

“You kind of forget, these types of partnerships exist, or could exist or should be brought about, so I think it’s just brilliant and I hope, I really do hope we do more of this in the future; more arts partnerships”.

(AP3)

Professionals also noted that it was “fantastic to meet new people and have the opportunity to network” (AP4) and that they gained valuable skills working alongside other practitioners, with one participant highlighting that “watching the more experienced team just was very helpful” (AP5).

The bringing together of professionals within the workshops sparked connections which also have the capacity to further develop practitioners’ professional development and confidence building, with participants noting they had gained “new connections that I can hopefully ask for help or guidance on future work with young people” (AP6).

Engaging in Co-Production and Listening to Young People

Professionals and practitioners highlighted that participation in the labs reiterated to them the importance of actively engaging and listening to young people. Many responded positively to the lab’s approach to co-production, noting that the model allowed them to reflect on their own practice and how they might also integrate co-production approaches into their practice. Practitioners highlighted that the labs placed importance on hearing from young people and readdressing traditional dynamics within work with children and young people.

“It’s much more two way and listening to what young people have to say and responding… [there is a] feeling that everyone’s on the same footing rather than being a deliverer and a participant”.

(AP7)

Practitioners also noted benefits for the children and young people taking part, and that facilitating a supportive environment in which they could express their ideas resulted in positive sharing and engagement. This was noted on an individual level, and across groups working together.

“It’s important to listen to our young people. They have some brilliant ideas and work really well together despite not knowing each other before the workshop”.

(AP8)

“[He’s] chatting to strangers that he only met yesterday and initiating the chat as well, which is a big thing. He was chatting to another young person over there and then he started to dance and I’m thinking ‘what, dancing? I’ve never seen you dance before!’, so he’s doing different things which he wouldn’t normally do which I think is interesting”.

(AP9)

Co-Production Challenges

While most responses from practitioners were overwhelmingly positive, some of the early feedback following the first workshop, which included a wider range of ages (8–25 years), reported having found it challenging to engage all children and young people. One respondent reported that they felt asking questions about mental health and wellbeing would be too challenging for younger children.

“None of them have ever experienced live music, and we just let them do some colouring in because the activity was really not for them”.

(AP10)

“It came to me that the kids didn’t have enough lived experience to be able to answer the difficult questions, to my knowledge the only live music anyone of the kids had seen prior to the event had been a band visiting school”.

(AP11)

Some practitioners reflected that because of children’s ages, they felt they would be unable to engage in developing lab ideas, having not had sufficient lived experience. Also, some musicians and practitioners felt confused about their roles within labs and found this challenging.

“I’m not actually sure what our role is meant to be, I think that’s where some of the confusion has come in”.

(AP12)

“Older young people were confused about what their role was—they wanted to be participants and have their ideas and voices heard, but instead felt overlooked”.

(AP2)

As feedback was recorded by the researcher and reflected on between each lab session, changes to the workshop structure to address some initial challenges could be made. Project leads met with all musicians and those facilitating the workshops to clarify the project outcomes at the beginning of each subsequent lab, and the role of practitioners was more clearly outlined during the introductory segment. Practitioner feedback for later sessions did not highlight confusion around roles and responsibilities within the labs.

3.2.3. Children and Young People Influence or Lead Youth Music Opportunities and Have Their Voice Heard in Design and Delivery

Children and young people were asked to participate in a range of evaluation activities, including interactive “this-or-that” games, graffiti walls, and short semi-structured interviews. Interactive “this-or-that” games collected responses from 61 workshop participants over the two days of each lab (

Table 4. Interactive game results.

	Yes	No	Total
Question	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Did you feel confident sharing your ideas today?	54 (88.90)	6 (11.10)	60 (100)
Do you think live music can help people’s mental health?	56 (96.40)	2 (3.60)	58 (100)
Do you think you’d like to go to more live music?	47 (89.40)	5 (10.60)	52 (100)
Could your ideas encourage more young people to come to live music events?	46 (93.50)	3 (6.50)	49 (100)
Did you have fun?	48 (100)	0 (0)	48 (100)

: Interactive game results).

Graffiti walls (n = 3) were included at each Innovation Lab. Across the three labs, 101 written responses to questions were recorded, alongside miscellaneous drawing and graffiti (

Table 5. A selection of responses from the graffiti wall.

Site	Prompt	Response	Images
Glasgow	Did you get to share all your ideas?	Yes (n = 11)
Inverness	What helped you share your ideas?	Feeling comfortable with everyone; communication; confidence (n = 3); passion; good communication within the group.
Stirling	How do you feel after taking part?	Great; alright; good I got to pitch my ideas to the group; feeling good been a great day; good because I got to meet new people and see friends.
Inverness	Have we listened to you?	Yes (n = 3); of course
Inverness	What did you enjoy most?	Everything; my violin; the music; music; being in groups; band names; this board.

: A selection of responses from the graffiti wall). Key themes which emerged included “enjoying taking part”, “feeling their voice had been heard”, “good communication”, and “improved wellbeing”. As well as being a space for feedback, the graffiti wall also provided the young people with a space to congregate at the beginning of the day or breaks to draw, play games (hangman, tic-tac-toe, etc.), and write notes. They became important aspects of the labs not only as an evaluation method, but also for all participants to express themselves and their creativity within a wider secure and creative space.

Over the three labs, 32 young people chose to take part in interviews, most individually, with some choosing to speak to the researcher in small groups, or with their support worker.

Evaluation data demonstrated that overall, the participants enjoyed taking part, felt confident sharing their ideas, felt that their ideas were listened to and enjoyed meeting and working with a range of people.

Increased Confidence in Sharing Views

Young people expressed that they felt confident sharing their views during the labs, and this was attributed to a supportive environment, splitting into different groups to complete activities and good communication throughout the days. In interactive games, 89% of participants said they felt confident sharing their ideas. Children and young people shared in interviews that they felt comfortable expressing their ideas, with some highlighting that the format and environment felt different from their experiences of sharing their views at school, which they found positive.

“I don’t really like talking in class with other people, but I felt more comfortable with [lab participants] here”.

Children and Young Person Participant 1(CYP1)

“It’s been pretty spread out, like, everyone’s been contributing and no one’s judging anyone’s ideas, it’s all very inclusive and it’s great to hear what everyone has to say”.

(CYP2)

“It was a supportive space”.

(CYP3)

Feeling Their Voice Has Been Heard

Interviews with the children and young people, alongside data from the graffiti walls, demonstrated they felt listened to, and their voices and opinions had been heard during the labs. Participants shared that they found expressing their ideas a positive experience and had been able to share their thoughts on a range of topics.

“I’ve felt good sharing my ideas”.

(CYP6)

“I’ve felt that I’ve been able to express what I’ve felt when it comes to music, when it comes to mental health”.

(CYP4)

Young people also reflected that they had engaged in active discussions within their groups, which allowed them to share ideas and thoughts in a supportive environment.

“I really like how we discussed the ways to make like, going to a live music show more accessible”.

(CYP7)

“we’ve even had some debates with people about what we want to go in the ‘wants’ and the ‘needs’ [when we were designing our project idea]”.

(CYP8)

Although most responses indicated children and young people had felt able to express their views, two older participants at the same lab reported that they would have liked to have spent more time speaking about mental health and wellbeing. They had not felt this was possible in the larger group situation, or with younger children present, and would have liked more dedicated time and space for this.

“On the mental health side, I wish it could be more talked about and maybe the angle in which it should have been, it should be approached, should maybe not be in a larger format”.

(CYP4)

“It’s not a place where like, it’s easy to talk about, you know, stuff with the young kids. Like they’re not, they’re not too sure of understanding of, like, the kind of things you’ve experienced or that sort of thing”.

(CYP5)

Improved Self-Esteem

The workshops positively impacted the young people, with participants sharing their feelings of empowerment and confidence in interviews and feeling more confident to engage with music in the community. In total, 100% of respondents in the interactive “this-or-that” games said they had fun attending the labs, and 89% reported that they would like to go to more live music events in future. In interviews, they reflected on increased feelings of self-esteem and security after participating in the labs.

“I feel proud and brave, I also feel really happy”.

(CYP9)

“I was very anxious when I first came here, but that’s just a lot of places for me, but I enjoyed it the more time I spend here, it’s just amazing”.

(CYP10)

Participants also noted that learning new skills and engaging with new ideas and new people had a positive impact on their self-esteem. It gave them a feeling of being able to try new things and wanting to engage in different experiences beyond the scope of the workshops.

“I feel excited, I don’t know it’s given me a new feeling, I feel like a businesswoman… In the groups we did like different activities, like wee bits of stuff like I genuinely didn’t think I knew until it was explained to me and I was able to do it and now I feel like a business woman”!

(CYP11)

“[I’d like] to go to more concerts. It’s made me think, about like experiencing new ones that I’ve not done before”.

(CYP12)

Working Together with a Range of People

An additional positive reflection from some participants was the opportunity to work with a diverse range of people in the labs, especially professional musicians. This proximity and the opportunity to work with and share ideas with professionals were especially exciting for young people who found it inspirational. They reflected on these positives in the following:

“getting to talk to adults who are ‘on the scene’ and seeing people who are doing this as their jobs is so great”.

(CYP13)

“meeting the people and learning about how the live music actually does help mental health”.

(CYP12)

4. Discussion

This project successfully delivered on all desired outcomes, by bringing together children and young people, musicians, and a range of professionals to learn how children and young people want to experience live music. Not only do the findings of this project provide key co-created solutions as to how live music can be delivered to children and young people to support their mental health and wellbeing, but they also resulted in valuable learning around intergenerational co-production. Also, the range of creative data collection tools used to evaluate the workshops shows the benefits of using multiple methods to promote engagement and ensure accessibility to all.

Some of the key ideas generated by the groups are concepts that may be identifiable from youth work practises, the music industry, community projects, or indeed health interventions; however, there is a paucity of research evidence to support their effectiveness or reported benefits. For example, music festivals are a common format for live music delivery across the summer months and they assume many formats and genre of music; however, they primarily carry very expensive ticket costs, are centred around the needs of adults, and are only accessible to children and young people whose families take them. Co-designing and delivering a live music festival to meet the needs of children and young people with the primary aim of supporting their mental health and wellbeing is a novel idea that should be considered for future research. Additionally, making un-sold gig tickets available to children and young people to support their mental health and wellbeing is something that venue providers may welcome, and could be realised through expanding existing social prescribing resources [34,35]. Future applications to fund such innovative projects should ensure that research and evaluation are key components to ensure they address the current evidence gap. Proposals should include plans for the consideration and development of appropriate and agreed core outcome measures, as potential benefits may be indirect and harder to capture.

Although it is becoming more normalised within research, policy, and service delivery to consider the views of children and young people and adopt co-production approaches, issues in relation to power remain, and can result in confusion about roles and responsibilities, and young people feeling their involvement is tokenistic [36,37]. Although nuanced, there is an intrinsic power imbalance between adults and children [38] that can be difficult to overcome in the context of co-production where ideally power is shared equally amongst all group members [39,40,41].

The workshop format worked well overall and supported the engagement of participants with a range of needs, ages, and genders. Evaluation data revealed that participating in the labs was beneficial to both the young people and adults who attended. Importantly, children and young people reported that they felt their voices were heard, and they felt involved throughout. Although not unique to our project [42], we did encounter challenges within the first lab, and it became clear there was some confusion about the aims of the workshop, with some adult participants expressing they did not feel some of the younger participants had enough life experience to make as valuable a contribution. At the same lab, some of the older young people said they had not felt comfortable discussing mental health with younger children present, thus highlighting the different needs of older and younger children.

Additionally, we found some of the musicians equally misunderstood the focus of the sessions and their role as “workshop participant” and not solely as performer. The evaluation tools allowed us to identify this early, and for all remaining labs, the aims of the project and each partner’s role was more clearly outlined at the beginning of the session.

Although the partners leading the project are well versed in and committed to both a children’s rights and co-production approach, this situation highlights the importance in intergenerational and multi-disciplinary co-production of ensuring all the people delivering and supporting workshops are equally familiar with their role and the aims of the project. Dedicating time prior to sessions to reiterate the session aims and outlines and explain the essence of co-production allowed for greater clarity around expectations and roles.

The wide range of data collection tools that were used throughout the labs proved successful in capturing how well we were able to meet our desired outcomes and were appreciated by the wide range of participants we had who told us how engaging they found them. Although there was some loss to follow-up between practitioner pre- and post-workshop surveys, the 59% completion rate was enough to allow us to form some general conclusions, situating the data amongst the other forms of feedback collected. Additionally, because children and young people were able to choose if they wanted to take part in all aspects of the day, including evaluation, not everyone participated in every part of evaluation. Not all children and young people wanted to take part in the this-or-that-game, some participants had to leave before the end of the day, and some were not able to attend both days. Overall, the range and creativity of tools used gave participants options and allowed them to be more creative and honest in their reflections than standard evaluation forms that people are often confronted with at the end of a workshop experience.

5. Conclusions

This study provides a range of co-produced solutions which could enable children and young people to access live music in ways that could support their mental health and wellbeing. More research is needed to develop and test these ideas, involving a range of stakeholders throughout this process. It has also created new knowledge and learning for musicians, live music event organisers, and providers, highlighting issues around the provision of live music for children and young people, especially in relation to barriers and facilitators. Furthermore, it will be a useful resource for anyone looking to undertake intergenerational co-production or seeking to use fun and creative evaluation tools with a range of participants with differing needs, ages, and levels of literacy.