ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2022
User Requirements for Comanaged Digital Health and Care: Review.
Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effect of telemedicine on stoma-related complications in adults with enterostomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2024Pooled it
- The effectiveness of eHealth-based cardiovascular disease risk communication: a systematic review and meta-analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- A Trust-Aware Architecture for Personalized Digital Health: Integrating Blueprint Personas and Ontology-Based Reasoning.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- Strategies to optimise the health equity impact of digital pain self-reporting tools: a series of multi-stakeholder focus groups.International journal for equity in health · 2024Article
- Greenway of Digital Health Technology During COVID-19 Crisis: Bibliometric Analysis, Challenges, and Future Perspective.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024Review
- Personal data store ecosystems in health and social care.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Impact of internet plus health education on urinary stoma caregivers in coping with care burden and stress in the era of COVID-19.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe sustainability of health and social care has led to an imperative to shift the balance of care to communities and support person-centered, integrated, preventive, comanaged, and sustainable care. The digital tool set can support this shift; however, it must extend beyond a clinical focus to include broader personal, social, and environmental needs, experiences, and outcomes. The existing digital health and care design and user requirements literature focuses mainly on specific digital products or design methods. There is little whole-system or whole-of-life consideration, which is crucial to enacting more significant transformations that span different groups and domains.
objectiveThis study aimed to present a set of recurring user requirements and themes for comanaged digital health and care services derived from the body of co-design projects within a digital health and care program. This study aimed to enable people and organizations looking to reorient their approach to health and care research and delivery from a system-led and condition-specific approach to a more person-centric, whole-of-life model.
methodsParticipatory design formed the core methodological approach in underlying the design research, from which user requirements were derived. The process of surfacing requirements involved a selection framework for the identification of eligible projects and a structured review process to consolidate user requirements.
resultsThis paper presents a set of 14 common user requirements that resulted from a review of co-design projects. The findings demonstrate overlapping and reinforcing sets of needs from citizens and care professionals related to how data are comanaged to improve care and outcomes. This paper discusses the alignment, contrasts, and gaps with broader, comparable literature. It highlights consensus around requirements for personal health storytelling, sharing data on care experiences and how this can support personalized guidance, visualize trends to support decision-making, and generally improve dialog between a citizen and care professionals. These findings identify gaps around how groups and networks of people engage, posing difficult questions for people designing support services as some of the user requirements are not easily met by organizations operating in silos.
conclusionsThis study proposes future recommendations for citizens as active, informed, and consenting partners using new forms of privacy-preserving digital infrastructure that puts the citizen in firm control. It is also recommended that these findings be used by people developing new digital services to ensure that they can start with knowledge of the broader user requirement context. This should inform domain-specific research and development questions and processes. Further work is needed to extend these common requirements to more explicitly consider the trust framework required when citizens comanage their data and care across a broad range of formal and informal actors. Consideration of how authority, delegation, and trust function between members of the public will be critical.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.