Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33055069›Full record

ReviewJournal of participatory medicine2019

Participatory Methods to Engage Health Service Users in the Development of Electronic Health Resources: Systematic Review.

Gaye Moore, Helen Wilding, Kathleen Gray, David Castle

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of participatory medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Involvement of children and young people in the conduct of health research: A rapid umbrella review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  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. Review
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.

Gaye Moore *Mental Health Executive Services, St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Fitzroy, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2699-7510
Helen Wilding *Mental Health Executive Services, St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Fitzroy, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3894-1239
Kathleen GrayHealth and Biomedical Informatics Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1616-2170
David CastleMental Health Executive Services, St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Fitzroy, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3075-1580

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen health service providers (HSP) plan to develop electronic health (eHealth) resources for health service users (HSU), the latter's involvement is essential. Typically, however, HSP, HSU, and technology developers engaged to produce the resources lack expertise in participatory design methodologies suited to the eHealth context. Furthermore, it can be difficult to identify an established method to use, or determine how to work stepwise through any particular process.

objectiveWe sought to summarize the evidence about participatory methods and frameworks used to engage HSU in the development of eHealth resources from the beginning of the design process.

methodsWe searched for studies reporting participatory processes in initial development of eHealth resources from 2006 to 2016 in 9 bibliographic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Emcare, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ACM Guide to Computing Literature, and IEEE Xplore. From 15,117 records initially screened on title and abstract for relevance to eHealth and early participatory design, 603 studies were assessed for eligibility on full text. The remaining 90 studies were rated by 2 reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool Version 2011 (Pluye et al; MMAT) and analyzed with respect to health area, purpose, technology type, and country of study. The 30 studies scoring 90% or higher on MMAT were included in a detailed qualitative synthesis.

resultsOf the 90 MMAT-rated studies, the highest reported (1) health areas were cancer and mental disorders, (2) eHealth technologies were websites and mobile apps, (3) targeted populations were youth and women, and (4) countries of study were the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. Of the top 30 studies the highest reported participatory frameworks were User-Centered Design, Participatory Action Research Framework, and the Center for eHealth Research and Disease Management (CeHRes) Roadmap, and the highest reported model underpinning development and engagement was Social Cognitive Theory. Of the 30 studies, 4 reported on all the 5 stages of the CeHRes Roadmap.

conclusionsThe top 30 studies yielded 24 participatory frameworks. Many studies referred to using participatory design methods without reference to a framework. The application of a structured framework such as the CeHRes Roadmap and a model such as Social Cognitive Theory creates a foundation for a well-designed eHealth initiative that ensures clarity and enables replication across participatory design projects. The framework and model need to be clearly articulated and address issues that include resource availability, responsiveness to change, and the criteria for good practice. This review creates an information resource for future eHealth developers, to guide the design of their eHealth resource with a framework that can support further evaluation and development.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42017053838; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=53838.

Indexed as

community-based participatory researchconsumer participationeHealthinternetmobile appspatient participationplanning techniquesprogram developmentsoftware designtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID33055069
PMCPMC7434099

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.