Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36102548›Full record

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.

Christine Jacob, Steven Bourke, Sabina Heuss

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
15.9field-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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 · 2025
    Article
  8. 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 · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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 · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christine JacobFHNW - University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland, Windisch, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8817-0148
Steven Bourke *PersonalPulse GmbH, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1333-7257
Sabina HeussFHNW - University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland, Olten, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1171-918X
FHNW University of Applied Sciences and Arts · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

eHealthelectronic health recordhealth educationmHealthmobile healthmobile phonepatient empowermentpatient engagementpatientspatient voiceperceptionpublic health practicesmartphonetechnologytelehealthtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID36102548
PMCPMC9585443
OpenAlexW4295758154

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.