Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33960175›Full record

ArticleJournal of health organization and management2021

Challenges in co-designing an intervention to increase mobility in older patients: a qualitative study.

Jeanette Kirk, Thomas Bandholm, Ove Andersen, Rasmus Skov Husted, Tine Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, Per Nilsen, Mette Merete Pedersen

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of health organization and management, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
13.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  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. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Jeanette KirkDepartment of Clinical Research and Department of Public Health, Nursing, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Thomas BandholmDepartment of Clinical Research, Copenhagen University Hospital, Amager and Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Ove AndersenDepartment of Clinical Research, Amager and Hvidovre Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Rasmus Skov HustedDepartment of Clinical Research, Copenhagen University Hospital, Amager and Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Tine Tjørnhøj-ThomsenDepartment of Health and Social Context, National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Sønderborg, Denmark.
Per NilsenDepartment of Health, Medical and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Mette Merete PedersenDepartment of Clinical Research, Copenhagen University Hospital, Amager and Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Hvidovre Hospital · DKAarhus University · DKAmager Hospital · DKLinköping University · SEUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study is to explore and discuss key challenges associated with having stakeholders take part in co-designing a health care intervention to increase mobility in older medical patients admitted to two medical departments at two hospitals in Denmark. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The study used a qualitative design to investigate the challenges of co-designing an intervention in five workshops involving health professionals, patients and relatives. "Challenges" are understood as "situations of being faced with something that needs great mental or physical effort in order to be done successfully and therefore tests a person's ability" (Cambridge Dictionary). Thematic content analysis was conducted with a background in the analytical question: "What key challenges arise in the material in relation to the co-design process?".

findingsTwo key challenges were identified: engagement and facilitation. These consisted of five sub-themes: recruiting patients and relatives, involving physicians, adjusting to a new researcher role, utilizing contextual knowledge and handling ethical dilemmas. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The population of patients and relatives participating in the workshops was small, which likely affected the co-design process. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Researchers who want to use co-design must be prepared for the extra time required and the need for skills concerning engagement, communication, facilitation, negotiation and resolution of conflict. Time is also required for ethical discussions and considerations concerning different types of knowledge creation. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Engaging stakeholders in co-design processes is increasingly encouraged. This study documents the key challenges in such processes and reports practical implications.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelAgedHospitalizationHumansQualitative ResearchCo-designMobilityOlder medical patientsQualitativeUser-engagement

Identifiers

PMID33960175
PMCPMC9251644
OpenAlexW3156046035

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.