Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34273978›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Participatory co-design and normalisation process theory with staff and patients to implement digital ways of working into routine care: the example of electronic patient-reported outcomes in UK renal services.

S E Knowles, A Ercia, F Caskey, M Rees, K Farrington, S N Van der Veer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Customizing workflows for electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) symptom monitoring using the action, actor, context, target, time (AACTT) framework.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors.

S E KnowlesCentre for Reviews & Dissemination, University of York, York, UK. sarah.knowles@york.ac.uk.
A ErciaCentre for Health Informatics, Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
F CaskeyPopulation Health Science Institute, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
M ReesSchool of Social, Historical and Political Studies, University of Wolverhampton, Farrington, UK.
K FarringtonRenal Unit, East & North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Stevenage, UK.
S N Van der VeerCentre for Health Informatics, Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

The Health Foundation Insight Award 565090
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSuccessful implementation of digital health systems requires contextually sensitive solutions. Working directly with system users and drawing on implementation science frameworks are both recommended. We sought to combine Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) with participatory co-design methods, to work with healthcare stakeholders to generate implementation support recommendations for a new electronic patient reported outcome measure (ePRO) in renal services. ePROs collect data on patient-reported symptom burden and illness experience overtime, requiring sustained engagement and integration into existing systems.

methodsWe identified co-design methods that could be mapped to NPT constructs to generate relevant qualitative data. Patients and staff from three renal units in England participated in empathy and process mapping activities to understand 'coherence' (why the ePRO should be completed) and 'cognitive participation' (who would be involved in collecting the ePRO). Observation of routine unit activity was completed to understand 'collective action' (how the collection of ePRO could integrate with service routines).

resultsThe mapping activities and observation enabled the research team to become more aware of the key needs of both staff and patients. Working within sites enabled us to consider local resources and barriers. This produced 'core and custom' recommendations specifying core needs that could be met with customised local solutions. We identified two over-arching themes which need to be considered when introducing new digital systems (1) That data collection is physical (electronic systems need to fit into physical spaces and routines), and (2) That data collection is intentional (system users must be convinced of the value of collecting the data).

conclusionsWe demonstrate that NPT constructs can be operationalised through participatory co-design to work with stakeholders and within settings to collaboratively produce implementation support recommendations. This enables production of contextually sensitive implementation recommendations, informed by qualitative evidence, theory, and stakeholder input. Further longitudinal evaluation is necessary to determine how successful the recommendations are in practice.

Indexed as

ElectronicsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresEnglandHumansQualitative ResearchUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID34273978
PMCPMC8286572

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.