ArticleJMIR human factors2022
From Testers to Cocreators-the Value of and Approaches to Successful Patient Engagement in the Development of eHealth Solutions: Qualitative Expert Interview Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perspectives on and Experiences With Remote Monitoring and Patient-Initiated Care Among Norwegian Patients With Axial Spondyloarthritis: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- From Prototype to Practice: Mixed Methods Study of Human-Centered Design and Usability Evaluation of Augmented Reality for Complex Oncology Surgical Workflows.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Engaging individuals in digital health research panels: A qualitative study including participants in vulnerable positions.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Implementation of Reference Framework for Preventive Care for Older Adults: Cross-sectional Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Bridging Gaps in Women's Heart Health: User-Centered Needs Assessment Informed by Patient and Clinician Interviews.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Digital Health Technologies: Learnings and Perspectives From a Patient Engagement Stakeholder Expectations Matrix Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Operationalising Patient Engagement Through the Alberta Cancer Diagnosis Initiative: Recruitment Strategies for Diverse Populations in Health System Improvement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Using Human-Centred Design to Codesign Patient Engagement Tools With a Patient Advisory Council: Successes and Challenges.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- The triple integration of data, users and policies required for successful climate health solutions.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Think-Aloud Testing of a Companion App for Colonoscopy Examinations: Usability Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- American Medical Extended Reality Association Expert Consensus: Best Practices for Patient and Public Involvement in Medical Extended Reality Research.Journal of medical extended reality · 2025Article
- Towards on-skin analysis of sweat for managing disorders of substance abuse.Nature biomedical engineering · 2024Article
- The Perspectives of Healthcare Professionals and Managers on Patient Involvement in Care Pathway Development: A Discourse Analysis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Navigating meaningful engagement: lessons from partnering with youth and families in brain-based disability research.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- A sociotechnical framework to assess patient-facing eHealth tools: results of a modified Delphi process.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Article
- Measuring What Is Meaningful in Cancer Cachexia Clinical Trials: A Path Forward With Digital Measures of Real-World Physical Behavior.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2023Review
- Perceived Use Cases, Barriers, and Requirements for a Smart Health-Tracking Toilet Seat: Qualitative Focus Group Study.JMIR human factors · 2023Article
- Commentary: Patient Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence; What have We Learned and How Should We Move Forward?Advances in therapy · 2023Article
- Developing a Digital Medication Adherence Intervention for and With Patients With Asthma and Low Health Literacy: Protocol for a Participatory Design Approach.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Assessing the Quality and Impact of eHealth Tools: Systematic Literature Review and Narrative Synthesis.JMIR human factors · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch has shown that patient engagement is most commonly done at the beginning of research or to test readily available prototypes and less commonly done in other phases such as the execution phases. Previous studies have reported that patients are usually assigned a consultative rather than a decision-making role in health service planning and evaluation.
objectiveThis study had 2 objectives: to better understand the challenges and opportunities in the inclusion of patients in the development of eHealth technologies and ideas on how to overcome the identified gaps and to create a research-based end-to-end practical blueprint that can guide the relevant stakeholders to successfully engage patients as cocreators in all human-centered design phases rather than mere testers of preplanned prototypes.
methodsKey informant interviews were conducted using in-depth semistructured interviews with 20 participants from 6 countries across Europe. This was followed by a focus group to validate the initial findings. Participants encompassed all the relevant stakeholder groups including patient experts, eHealth experts, health technology providers, clinicians, pharma executives, and health insurance experts.
resultsThis study shows that engaging patients in eHealth development can help provide different types of value; namely, identifying unmet needs, better usability and desirability, better fit into the patient journey, better adoption and stickiness, better health outcomes, advocacy and trust, a sense of purpose, and better health equity and access. However, the participants agreed that patients are usually engaged too late in the development process, mostly assuming a sounding role in testing a ready-made prototype. The justification for these gaps in engagement is driven by some prominent barriers, notably compliance risks, patient-related factors, power dynamics, patient engagement as lip service, poor value perception, lack of resources, mistrust, and inflexibility. On the positive side, the participants also reflected on facilitators for better patient engagement; for instance, engaging through engagement partners, novel approaches such as the rise of professional patient experts, embedding patients in development teams, expectation management, and professional moderation services.
conclusionsOvercoming the current gaps in patient engagement in eHealth development requires consolidated efforts from all stakeholders in a complex health care ecosystem. The shift toward more patient-driven eHealth development requires education and awareness; frameworks to monitor and evaluate the value of patient engagement; regulatory clarity and simplification; platforms to facilitate patient access and identification; patient incentivization, transparency, and trust; and a mindset shift toward value-based health care.
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.