Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30518514›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2018

How Inclusive, User-Centered Design Research Can Improve Psychological Therapies for Psychosis: Development of SlowMo.

Amy Hardy, Anna Wojdecka, Jonathan West, Ed Matthews, Christopher Golby, Thomas Ward, Natalie D Lopez, Daniel Freeman, Helen Waller, Elizabeth Kuipers and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. The impact of Patient and Public Involvement in the SlowMo study: Reflections on peer innovation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  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

15 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Amy HardyDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6044-6093
Anna WojdeckaHelen Hamlyn Centre for Design, Royal College of Art, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4702-7473
Jonathan WestHelen Hamlyn Centre for Design, Royal College of Art, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3972-1158
Ed MatthewsHelen Hamlyn Centre for Design, Royal College of Art, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6228-9100
Christopher GolbyEvolyst Limited, Warwick, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3303-3293
Thomas WardDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7608-5755
Natalie D LopezDepartment of Psychology, Royal Holloway, Egham, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4860-7595
Daniel FreemanDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2541-2197
Helen WallerSouth London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5766-0972
Elizabeth KuipersDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0041-7338
Paul BebbingtonDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6030-7456
David FowlerDepartment of Psychology, University of Sussex, Sussex, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5806-2659
Richard EmsleyDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1218-675X
Graham DunnSchool of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7091-3161
Philippa GaretyDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5637-1340
King's College London · GBRoyal College of Art · GBRoyal Holloway University of London · GBSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Sussex · GB

Funding

Department of Health EME/15/48/21Department of Health RP-2014-05-003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReal-world implementation of psychological interventions for psychosis is poor. Barriers include therapy being insufficiently usable and useful for a diverse range of people. User-centered, inclusive design approaches could improve the usability of therapy, which may increase uptake, adherence, and effectiveness.

objectiveThis study aimed to optimize the usability of an existing psychological intervention, Thinking Well, which targets reasoning processes in paranoia using a basic digital interface.

methodsWe conducted inclusive, user-centered design research characterized by purposive sampling of extreme users from the margins of groups, ethnographic investigation of the problem context, and iterative prototyping of solutions. The UK Design Council's double diamond method was used. This consisted of 4 phases: discover, including a case series of Thinking Well, stakeholder interviews, desk research, user profiling, system mapping, and a mood board; define, consisting of workshops to synthesize findings and generate the design brief; develop, involving concept workshops and prototype testing; and deliver, in which the final minimal viable product was storyboarded and iteratively coded.

resultsConsistent with our previous work, the Thinking Well case series showed medium to large effects on paranoia and well-being and small effects on reasoning. These were maintained at follow-up despite some participants reporting difficulties with the therapy interface. Insights from the discover phase confirmed that usability was challenged by information complexity and poor accessibility. Participants were generally positive about the potential of technology to be enjoyable, help manage paranoia, and provide tailored interpersonal support from therapists and peers, although they reported privacy and security concerns. The define phase highlighted that the therapy redesign should support monitoring, simplify information processing, enhance enjoyment and trust, promote personalization and normalization, and offer flexible interpersonal support. During the develop phase over 60 concepts were created, with 2 key concepts of thoughts visualized as bubbles and therapy as a journey selected for storyboarding. The output of the deliver phase was a minimal viable product of an innovative digital therapy, SlowMo. SlowMo works by helping people to notice their worries and fast thinking habits, and encourages them to slow down for a moment to find ways of feeling safer. A Web app supports the delivery of 8 face-to-face sessions, which are synchronized to a native mobile app.

conclusionsSlowMo makes use of personalization, ambient information, and visual metaphors to tailor the appeal, engagement, and memorability of therapy to a diversity of needs. Feasibility testing has been promising, and the efficacy of SlowMo therapy is now being tested in a multicentered randomized controlled trial. The study demonstrates that developments in psychological theory and techniques can be enhanced by improving the usability of the therapy interface to optimize its impact in daily life.

Indexed as

design thinkingdigital therapyeHealthinclusive designmHealthparanoiaparticipatory designpsychosisschizophreniauser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID30518514
PMCPMC6300708
OpenAlexW2885804443

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.