Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30289590›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2019

User involvement in digital health: Working together to design smart home health technology.

Alison Burrows, Ben Meller, Ian Craddock, Fiona Hyland, Rachael Gooberman-Hill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. User involvement in digital health: Working together to design smart home health technology.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    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

5 authors.

Alison BurrowsMerchant Venturers School of Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8899-7786
Ben MellerPublic Engagement, Research and Enterprise Development, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Ian CraddockMerchant Venturers School of Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Fiona HylandPublic Engagement, Research and Enterprise Development, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Rachael Gooberman-HillBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/K031910/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPublic involvement adds value to numerous aspects of health research, yet few studies have attempted to evaluate its impact on research. Evidence of such impact is needed to develop recommendations for best practice and ensure adequate resourcing.

aimTo evaluate public involvement within a large interdisciplinary Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) research project that focused on digital health.

methodsThe evaluation was conducted with members of the project's Public Advisory Groups (PAG) and with researchers who had participated in involvement activities. Two questionnaires were designed based on a public involvement value systems and clusters framework.

resultsResponses from members of the PAG (n = 10) were mostly positive towards normative values, which include moral, ethical and political aspects of involvement in research, and towards values concerning the conduct of public involvement and best practices. Researchers' responses (n = 16) indicated they felt that involvement was generally effective and increased the quality, relevance and generalizability of their work. However, their responses about the validity of involvement in research were varied. They also highlighted several challenges including how well public involvement impacted on research, how decisions made in the research might differ from the views generated from public involvement, and barriers to researchers' participation. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionOur evaluation suggests that members of the public and the researchers value involvement. However, there is a need to consider how to embed public involvement to an even greater extent in STEM contexts and a need to address any barriers for researchers' own involvement.

Indexed as

Biomedical TechnologyHealth Services ResearchHumansMedicineSurveys and Questionnairesdigital healthengagementevaluationimpactpublic involvementtechnology development

Identifiers

PMID30289590
PMCPMC6351410

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.