Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33791269›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2021

Co-creating Virtual Reality Interventions for Alcohol Prevention: Living Lab vs. Co-design.

Timo Dietrich, Julie Dalgaard Guldager, Patricia Lyk, Lotte Vallentin-Holbech, Sharyn Rundle-Thiele, Gunver Majgaard, Christiane Stock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

7 authors.

Timo DietrichGriffith Business School, Social Marketing @ Griffith, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Julie Dalgaard GuldagerUnit for Health Promotion Research, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg, Denmark.
Patricia LykGame Development and Learning Technology, The Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller Institute, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Lotte Vallentin-HolbechCentre for Alcohol and Drug Research, Department of Psychology and Behavioural Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Sharyn Rundle-ThieleGriffith Business School, Social Marketing @ Griffith, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Gunver MajgaardGame Development and Learning Technology, The Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller Institute, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Christiane StockUnit for Health Promotion Research, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Addressing the need for collaborative involvement in health intervention design requires application of processes that researchers and practitioners can apply confidently to actively involve end-users and wider stakeholder groups. Co-creation enables participation by focusing on empowering a range of stakeholders with opportunities to influence the final intervention design. While collaboration with users and stakeholders during intervention design processes are considered vital, clear articulation of procedures and considerations for various co-creation methodologies warrants further research attention. This paper is based on two case studies conducted in Australia and Denmark where researchers co-created virtual reality interventions in an alcohol prevention context. This paper explored and reflected on two co-creation methods-co-design and the Living Lab-and showcased the different processes and procedures of each approach. The study demonstrates that both approaches have merit, yet highlights tensions in distinguishing between the application of each of the respective steps undertaken in each of the processes. While a lot of similarities exist between approaches, differences are evident. Overall, it can be said that the Living Lab is broader in scope and processes applied within the Living Labs approach are more abstract. The co-design process that we applied in the first case study is described more granularly delivering a clear a step-by-step guide that practitioners can implement to co-design solutions that end-users value and that stakeholders support. An agenda to guide future research is outlined challenging researchers to identify the most effective co-creation approach.

Indexed as

Virtual RealityVirtual Reality Exposure TherapyAustraliaForecastingadolescentsalcoholco-creationco-designLiving Labpreventionvirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID33791269
PMCPMC8005569

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.