Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32673245›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

Co-Design in the Development of a Mobile Health App for the Management of Knee Osteoarthritis by Patients and Physicians: Qualitative Study.

Kelly J Mrklas, Tanya Barber, Denise Campbell-Scherer, Lee A Green, Linda C Li, Nancy Marlett, Jean Miller, Brittany Shewchuk, Sylvia Teare, Tracy Wasylak and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kelly J MrklasStrategic Clinical Networks, Provincial Clinical Excellence, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3887-1843
Tanya BarberEnhancing Alberta Primary Care Research Networks, Department of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7798-2354
Denise Campbell-SchererDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2500-8207
Lee A GreenEnhancing Alberta Primary Care Research Networks, Department of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1789-7366
Linda C LiDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6280-0511
Nancy MarlettO'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6417-1894
Jean MillerO'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9656-1261
Brittany ShewchukDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2933-9521
Sylvia TeareO'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3397-2645
Tracy WasylakStrategic Clinical Networks, Provincial Clinical Excellence, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6496-7523
Deborah A MarshallDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8467-8008
University of Calgary · CAUniversity of Alberta · CAAlberta Health Services · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

CIHR FDN 143237CIHR KAL147547
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite a doubling of osteoarthritis-targeted mobile health (mHealth) apps and high user interest and demand for health apps, their impact on patients, patient outcomes, and providers has not met expectations. Most health and medical apps fail to retain users longer than 90 days, and their potential for facilitating disease management, data sharing, and patient-provider communication is untapped. An important, recurrent criticism of app technology development is low user integration design. User integration ensures user needs, desires, functional requirements, and app aesthetics are responsive and reflect target user preferences.

objectiveThis study aims to describe the co-design process for developing a knee osteoarthritis minimum viable product (MVP) mHealth app with patients, family physicians, and researchers that facilitates guided, evidence-based self-management and patient-physician communication.

methodsOur qualitative co-design approach involved focus groups, prioritization activities, and a pre-post quality and satisfaction Kano survey. Study participants included family physicians, patient researchers and patients with knee osteoarthritis (including previous participants of related collaborative research), researchers, key stakeholders, and industry partners. The study setting was an academic health center in Southern Alberta.

resultsDistinct differences exist between what patients, physicians, and researchers perceive are the most important, convenient, desirable, and actionable app functional requirements. Despite differences, study participants agreed that the MVP should be electronic, should track patient symptoms and activities, and include features customized for patient- and physician-identified factors and international guideline-based self-management strategies. Through the research process, participants negotiated consensus on their respective priority functional requirements. The highest priorities were a visual symptom graph, setting goals, exercise planning and daily tracking, and self-management strategies. The structured co-design with patients, physicians, and researchers established multiple collaborative processes, grounded in shared concepts, language, power, rationale, mutual learning, and respect for diversity and differing opinions. These shared team principles fostered an open and inclusive environment that allowed for effective conceptualization, negotiation, and group reflection, aided by the provision of tangible and ongoing support throughout the research process, which encouraged team members to question conventional thinking. Group-, subgroup-, and individual-level data helped the team reveal how and for whom perspectives about individual functional requirements changed or remained stable over the course of the study. This provided valuable insight into how and why consensus emerged, despite the presence of multiple and differing underlying rationales for functional requirement prioritization.

conclusionsIt is feasible to preserve the diversity of perspectives while negotiating a consensus on the core functional requirements of an mHealth prototype app for knee osteoarthritis management. Our study sample was purposely constructed to facilitate high co-design interactivity. This study revealed important differences between the patient, physician, and researcher preferences for functional requirements of an mHealth app that did not preclude the development of consensus.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsOsteoarthritis, KneeTelemedicineAlbertaFemaleHumansMalePatient ParticipationPhysiciansappcommunity-based participatory researchhealth services researchknee osteoarthritis

Identifiers

PMID32673245
PMCPMC7382016
OpenAlexW3041753706

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.