The study was extensively based on experiential expertise. The research was led by two lived experience researchers and included a co-design group of people with mental and physical health concerns who had decision-making roles throughout the study. Lived experience experts conducted screening, data extraction, defined "usefulness" criteria, and evaluated all resources. The methodology explicitly positioned consumers as co-directors of the research rather than traditional subjects.

The document incorporated limited practice wisdom. While the research team included academics with clinical and health service backgrounds, the study explicitly critiqued clinician-designed resources as insufficient. The methodology deliberately prioritised lived experience over professional practice wisdom, finding that resources developed by health practitioners alone were less useful. The focus was on consumer expertise rather than clinical practice knowledge, representing a shift away from traditional professional-centered approaches.

The study was strongly based on research and evaluation insights. It employed systematic review methodology across three academic databases, screening 26,856 resources using Covidence software. The study utilised rigorous evaluation frameworks (referencing GRIPP2), applied consensus-based assessment criteria, and conducted statistical analysis of usefulness correlations. However, it notably integrated research methodology with lived experience evaluation expertise rather than relying solely on traditional academic research approaches.