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.
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.
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
33 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Usability of Exercise Prescription Apps for Professional Use: Systematic Review and Multidimensional Evaluation.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Pooled it
- Behavioral Therapy-Based Digital Interventions for Treating Osteoarthritis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Just-in-Time Adaptive Interventions for Behavior Change in Physiological Health Outcomes and the Use Case for Knee Osteoarthritis: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Rehabilitation Applications Based on Behavioral Therapy for People With Knee Osteoarthritis: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Pooled it
- Digital Health Technologies for Long-term Self-management of Osteoporosis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Pooled it
- Digital Episodic Future Thinking Intervention (Luminaut): Co-Design and Iterative Development Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Quantitative perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals to inform the co-design of an mHealth application for knee osteoarthritis management.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Using co-design to identify healthcare priorities for patients with incurable head and neck cancer.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Engaging Patients in Learning Health Systems Research Using Human Centered Design: A Scoping Review.Learning health systems · 2026Article
- Development of video exercise-based mobile application to improve the clinical outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Health apps: a cross-sectional study exploring patient motivations and usage implications.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Understanding patient needs and preferences for joint protection in hand osteoarthritis through mixed methods patient co-design.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- First steps in co-designing an online patient decision support tool for enhanced medication management in older people.Australasian journal on ageing · 2025Article
- Patients' Expectations for App-Based Therapy in Knee Osteoarthritis: User-Centered Design Approach.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2025Article
- Understanding Patient and Physiotherapist Requirements for a Personalized Automated Smartphone Telemonitored App for Posttotal Knee Arthroplasty Rehabilitation: Qualitative Study.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2025Article
- Impact of Bottom-Up Cocreation of Nursing Technological Innovations: Explorative Interview Study Among Hospital Nurses and Managers.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Using codesign workshops to develop a conceptual framework for a mobile health app targeting chronic low back pain self-management.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Patient Preferences and Priorities for the Design of an Acute Kidney Injury Prevention Trial: Findings from a Consensus Workshop.Kidney360 · 2024Article
- Citizen involvement in research on technological innovations for health, care or well-being: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Perceptions about smartphone-based interventions to promote physical activity in inactive adults with knee pain - A qualitative study.Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.