Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35029539›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2022

Co-design of a Smartphone App for People Living With Dementia by Applying Agile, Iterative Co-design Principles: Development and Usability Study.

Sarah Fox, Laura J E Brown, Steven Antrobus, David Brough, Richard J Drake, Francine Jury, Iracema Leroi, Adrian R Parry-Jones, Matthew Machin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Involving People With Dementia in Research: Contributions, Barriers and Evaluation From a Meta-Synthesis and Qualitative Interview Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Evaluating the Co-Design and Implementation of a Multicomponent Intervention to Improve Communication in Aged Care: A Nested Process Evaluation Protocol.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  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

9 authors.

Sarah FoxGlobal Brain Health Institute, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-5156-7830
Laura J E BrownManchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5251-4615
Steven AntrobusDivision of Informatics, Imaging & Data Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8671-7402
David BroughDivision of Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2250-2381
Richard J DrakeManchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0220-4835
Francine JuryUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0683-4041
Iracema LeroiGlobal Brain Health Institute, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-1822-3643
Adrian R Parry-JonesManchester Centre for Clinical Neurosciences, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4462-3846
Matthew MachinDivision of Informatics, Imaging & Data Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6600-9508

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_16033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe benefits of involving those with lived experience in the design and development of health technology are well recognized, and the reporting of co-design best practices has increased over the past decade. However, it is important to recognize that the methods and protocols behind patient and public involvement and co-design vary depending on the patient population accessed. This is especially important when considering individuals living with cognitive impairments, such as dementia, who are likely to have needs and experiences unique to their cognitive capabilities. We worked alongside individuals living with dementia and their care partners to co-design a mobile health app. This app aimed to address a gap in our knowledge of how cognition fluctuates over short, microlongitudinal timescales. The app requires users to interact with built-in memory tests multiple times per day, meaning that co-designing a platform that is easy to use, accessible, and appealing is particularly important. Here, we discuss our use of Agile methodology to enable those living with dementia and their care partners to be actively involved in the co-design of a mobile health app.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to explore the benefits of co-design in the development of smartphone apps. Here, we share our co-design methodology and reflections on how this benefited the completed product.

methodsOur app was developed using Agile methodology, which allowed for patient and care partner input to be incorporated iteratively throughout the design and development process. Our co-design approach comprised 3 core elements, aligned with the values of patient co-design and adapted to meaningfully involve those living with cognitive impairments: end-user representation at research and software development meetings via a patient proxy; equal decision-making power for all stakeholders based on their expertise; and continuous user consultation, user-testing, and feedback.

resultsThis co-design approach resulted in multiple patient and care partner-led software alterations, which, without consultation, would not have been anticipated by the research team. This included 13 software design alterations, renaming of the product, and removal of a cognitive test deemed to be too challenging for the target demographic.

conclusionsWe found patient and care partner input to be critical throughout the development process for early identification of design and usability issues and for identifying solutions not previously considered by our research team. As issues addressed in early co-design workshops did not reoccur subsequently, we believe this process made our product more user-friendly and acceptable, and we will formally test this assumption through future pilot-testing.

Indexed as

DementiaMobile ApplicationsTelemedicineHumansagileco-designcognitiondementiamHealthmobile phonepatient public involvementsoftware development

Identifiers

PMID35029539
PMCPMC8800089

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.