Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27558951›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2016

Patient Insights Into the Design of Technology to Support a Strengths-Based Approach to Health Care.

Jelena Mirkovic, Olöf Birna Kristjansdottir, Una Stenberg, Tonje Krogseth, Kurt C Stange, Cornelia M Ruland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Personal strengths reported by people with chronic illness: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Patients' Perceptions of Applying Information and Communication Technology Tools in Self-care and Factors Affecting It.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2018
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jelena MirkovicCentre for Shared Decision Making and Collaborative Care Research, Division of Medicine, Oslo University Hospital HF, Oslo, Norway. Jelena.Mirkovic@rr-research.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6828-1230

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn increasing number of research studies in the psychological and biobehavioral sciences support incorporating patients' personal strengths into illness management as a way to empower and activate the patients, thus improving their health and well-being. However, lack of attention to patients' personal strengths is still reported in patient-provider communication. Information technology (IT) has great potential to support strengths-based patient-provider communication and collaboration, but knowledge about the users' requirements and preferences is inadequate.

objectiveThis study explored the aspirations and requirements of patients with chronic conditions concerning IT tools that could help increase their awareness of their own personal strengths and resources, and support discussion of these assets in consultations with health care providers.

methodsWe included patients with different chronic conditions (chronic pain, morbid obesity, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and used various participatory research methods to gain insight into the participants' needs, values, and opinions, and the contexts in which they felt strengths-based IT tools could be used.

resultsParticipants were positive toward using technology to support them in identifying and discussing their personal strengths in clinical consultation, but also underlined the importance of fitting it to their specific requirements and the right contexts of use. Participants recommended that technology be designed for use in preconsultation settings (eg, at home) and felt that it should support them in both identifying strengths and in finding out new ways how strengths can be used to attain personal health-related goals. Participants advocated use of technology to support advance preparation for consultations and empower them to take a more active role. IT tools were suggested to be potentially useful in specific contexts, including individual or group consultations with health care providers (physician, nurse, specialist, care team) in clinical consultations but also outside health care settings (eg, as a part of a self-management program). Participants' requirements for functionality and design include, among others: providing examples of strengths reported by other patients with chronic conditions, along with an option to extend the list with personal examples; giving an option to briefly summarize health-related history; using intuitive, easy-to-use but also engaging user interface design. Additionally, the findings are exemplified with a description of a low-fidelity paper prototype of a strengths-based tool, developed with participants in this study.

conclusionsUsers requirements for IT support of a strengths-based approach to health care appear feasible. The presented findings reflect patients' values and lists potential contexts where they feel that technology could facilitate meaningful patient-provider communication that focuses not just on symptoms and problems, but also takes into account patients' strengths and resources. The findings can be used to inform further development of IT tools for use in clinical consultations.

Indexed as

chronic diseaseparticipatory designpatient-centered carepatient participationpatient–provider collaborationpatient requirementpatient strengthsresilienceuser-computer interface

Identifiers

PMID27558951
PMCPMC5014985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.