Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32338617›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2020

Generative Participatory Design Methodology to Develop Electronic Health Interventions: Systematic Literature Review.

Pieter Vandekerckhove, Marleen de Mul, Wichor M Bramer, Antoinette A de Bont

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

72 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Pieter VandekerckhoveErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0858-6563
Marleen de MulErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3447-5920
Wichor M BramerMedical Library Erasmus MC, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2681-9180
Antoinette A de BontErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0745-4537

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenerative participatory design (PD) may help in developing electronic health (eHealth) interventions. PD is characterized by the involvement of all stakeholders in creative activities. This is different from the traditional user-centered design, where users are less involved. When looking at PD from a research through design perspective, it is important to summarize the reasons for choosing a certain form of generative PD to further develop its methodology. However, the scientific literature is currently unclear about which forms of PD are used to develop eHealth and which arguments are used to substantiate the decision to use a certain form of generative PD.

objectiveThis study aimed to explore the reporting and substantiation of generative PD methodologies in empirical eHealth studies published in scientific journals to further develop PD methodology in the field of eHealth.

methodsA systematic literature review following the Cochrane guidelines was conducted in several databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE Ovid, Web of Science, and CINAHL EBSCOhost). Data were extracted on the recruitment and management of stakeholders, the use of tools, and the use of outcome measures.

resultsOf the 3131 studies initially identified, 69 were selected for qualitative synthesis. The reporting was very variable, depending to a large extent on whether the study stated that reporting on the PD process was a major aim. The different levels of reporting and substantiation of the choices of a recruitment strategy, stakeholder management, and tools and outcome measures are presented. Only a few authors explicitly used arguments directly related to PD guiding principles such as democratic, mutual learning, tacit and latent knowledge, and collective creativity. Even though PD principles were not always explicitly discussed in the method descriptions of the studies, they were implicitly present, mostly in the descriptions of the use of PD tools. The arguments used to substantiate the choices made in stakeholder management, PD tools, and the type of outcome measures adopted point to the involvement of PD principles.

conclusionsStudies that have used a PD research methodology to develop eHealth primarily substantiate the choice of tools made and much less the use of stakeholders and outcome measures.

Indexed as

HumansResearch DesignTelemedicinecocreationco-designeHealthmedical informaticsmethodmethodologyparticipatory designreviewtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID32338617
PMCPMC7215492

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.