ReviewBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2020
[Participatory development of digital public health: tension between user perspectives and evidence].
Review in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Digital Transformation in Patient Organizations: Interview and Focus Group Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Between willingness and practice: a nationwide survey of 1,334 German patient organization members on user involvement in digital service development.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Factors associated with intention to use an educative mHealth application among high-risk target groups in health prevention.mHealth · 2025Article
- Methods, Indicators, and End-User Involvement in the Evaluation of Digital Health Interventions for the Public: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- [Developments in the digitalization of public health since 2020 : Examples from the Leibniz ScienceCampus Digital Public Health Bremen].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2024Review
- An mHealth Application in German Health Care System: Importance of User Participation in the Development Process.Journal of medical systems · 2024Article
- [Motivational Reasons and Perceptions about Future Participation of Older People in the Research and Development Process of Health Technologies: a Mixed Methods Study].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2023Article
- [Mobile health technologies, social justice and population-based vulnerabilities : A public health ethics perspective on mHealth using the example of type 2 diabetes mellitus].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2023Review
- Mapping Digital Public Health Interventions Among Existing Digital Technologies and Internet-Based Interventions to Maintain and Improve Population Health in Practice: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- The dawn of digital public health in Europe: Implications for public health policy and practice.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital public health promises not only more comprehensive medical care, but also individual health promotion and support for positive lifestyle changes. Mobile digital health devices and services, also called mobile health (mHealth), play a key role in this. They include health-specific hardware and software applications such as smartphone apps and wearable technology for recording, monitoring, and evaluating specific health parameters. Although there is scientific evidence for the effectiveness of individual applications, most often applications are used for a relatively short amount of time. In order to achieve a higher acceptance and utilization rate, evidence is needed that is more practice oriented.This paper explains how participatory development approaches take into account the individual needs and preferences of users and can improve the quality and effectiveness of mHealth services. The sociodemographic characteristics of the target group as well as individual, social, linguistic, and cultural barriers should be considered. The wishes of users, for example personalization, transmission of real-time information, and transparency in terms of privacy should also be considered. In the co-design approach, users are therefore included directly in the product concept. However, the study situation is still limited and there are no methodical approaches.In order to increase the use of mHealth services in the future, participation processes should be systematized. In addition, a framework for classification and certification as well as procedures for promoting effective applications should be developed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.