Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34757323›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021

Using Co-design in Mobile Health System Development: A Qualitative Study With Experts in Co-design and Mobile Health System Development.

Tyler J Noorbergen, Marc T P Adam, Timm Teubner, Clare E Collins

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
22.9field-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

76 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 131 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Tyler J NoorbergenSchool of Information and Physical Sciences, College of Engineering, Science and Environment, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1273-6141
Marc T P AdamSchool of Information and Physical Sciences, College of Engineering, Science and Environment, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6036-4282
Timm TeubnerTechnical University Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5927-3770
Clare E CollinsHunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3298-756X
University of Newcastle Australia · AUHunter Medical Research Institute · AUTechnische Universität Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe proliferation of mobile devices has enabled new ways of delivering health services through mobile health systems. Researchers and practitioners emphasize that the design of such systems is a complex endeavor with various pitfalls, including limited stakeholder involvement in design processes and the lack of integration into existing system landscapes. Co-design is an approach used to address these pitfalls. By recognizing users as experts of their own experience, co-design directly involves users in the design process and provides them an active role in knowledge development, idea generation, and concept development.

objectiveDespite the existence of a rich body of literature on co-design methodologies, limited research exists to guide the co-design of mobile health (mHealth) systems. This study aims to contextualize an existing co-design framework for mHealth applications and construct guidelines to address common challenges of co-designing mHealth systems.

methodsTapping into the knowledge and experience of experts in co-design and mHealth systems development, we conducted an exploratory qualitative study consisting of 16 semistructured interviews. Thereby, a constructivist ontological position was adopted while acknowledging the socially constructed nature of reality in mHealth system development. Purposive sampling across web-based platforms (eg, Google Scholar and ResearchGate) and publications by authors with co-design experience in mHealth were used to recruit co-design method experts (n=8) and mHealth system developers (n=8). Data were analyzed using thematic analysis along with our objectives of contextualizing the co-design framework and constructing guidelines for applying co-design to mHealth systems development.

resultsThe contextualized framework captures important considerations of the mHealth context, including dedicated prototyping and implementation phases, and an emphasis on immersion in real-world contexts. In addition, 7 guidelines were constructed that directly pertain to mHealth: understanding stakeholder vulnerabilities and diversity, health behavior change, co-design facilitators, immersion in the mHealth ecosystem, postdesign advocates, health-specific evaluation criteria, and usage data and contextual research to understand impact.

conclusionsSystem designers encounter unique challenges when engaging in mHealth systems development. The contextualized co-design framework and constructed guidelines have the potential to serve as a shared frame of reference to guide the co-design of mHealth systems and facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration at the nexus of information technology and health research.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsTelemedicineEcosystemHealth BehaviorHumansQualitative Researchco-designguidelinesmHealthmobile phonequalitative study

Identifiers

PMID34757323
PMCPMC8663505
OpenAlexW3196546591

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.