ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2020
Evaluating stakeholder involvement in building a decision support tool for NHS health checks: co-producing the WorkHORSE study.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of factors influencing the commissioning, delivery, and uptake of general health checks: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Making room for patients in economic evaluation: a commentary on current capacity and future directions.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Towards socially robust policy modelling: scoping review of public involvement in computational policy modelling.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- The involvement of stakeholders in computational model development to support decision-making in public health: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Nine quick tips for trustworthy machine learning in the biomedical sciences.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Establishment of a value assessment framework for orphan medicinal products in China.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Article
- Co-production practice and future research priorities in United Kingdom-funded applied health research: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Four Aspects Affecting Health Economic Decision Models and Their Validation.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Article
- Improving peripheral venous cannula insertion in children: a mixed methods study to develop the DIVA key.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Modelling tool to support decision-making in the NHS Health Check programme: workshops, systematic review and co-production with users.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStakeholder engagement is being increasingly recognised as an important way to achieving impact in public health. The WorkHORSE (Working Health Outcomes Research Simulation Environment) project was designed to continuously engage with stakeholders to inform the development of an open access modelling tool to enable commissioners to quantify the potential cost-effectiveness and equity of the NHS Health Check Programme. An objective of the project was to evaluate the involvement of stakeholders in co-producing the WorkHORSE computer modelling tool and examine how they perceived their involvement in the model building process and ultimately contributed to the strengthening and relevance of the modelling tool.
methodsWe identified stakeholders using our extensive networks and snowballing techniques. Iterative development of the decision support modelling tool was informed through engaging with stakeholders during four workshops. We used detailed scripts facilitating open discussion and opportunities for stakeholders to provide additional feedback subsequently. At the end of each workshop, stakeholders and the research team completed questionnaires to explore their views and experiences throughout the process.
results30 stakeholders participated, of which 15 attended two or more workshops. They spanned local (NHS commissioners, GPs, local authorities and academics), third sector and national organisations including Public Health England. Stakeholders felt valued, and commended the involvement of practitioners in the iterative process. Major reasons for attending included: being able to influence development, and having insight and understanding of what the tool could include, and how it would work in practice. Researchers saw the process as an opportunity for developing a common language and trust in the end product, and ensuring the support tool was transparent. The workshops acted as a reality check ensuring model scenarios and outputs were relevant and fit for purpose.
conclusionsComputational modellers rarely consult with end users when developing tools to inform decision-making. The added value of co-production (continuing collaboration and iteration with stakeholders) enabled modellers to produce a "real-world" operational tool. Likewise, stakeholders had increased confidence in the decision support tool's development and applicability in practice.
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.