Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36306166›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2022

Lessons and Reflections From an Extended Co-design Process Developing an mHealth App With and for Older Adults: Multiphase, Mixed Methods Study.

Catherine Tong, Alison Kernoghan, Kassandra Lemmon, Paige Fernandes, Jacobi Elliott, Veronica Sacco, Sheila Bodemer, Paul Stolee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Co-design of an intervention to improve patient participation in discharge medication communication.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors.

Catherine TongSchool of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1214-0591
Alison KernoghanSchool of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9461-4294
Kassandra LemmonSchool of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9485-3263
Paige FernandesSchool of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9586-3233
Jacobi ElliottSchool of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8740-4638
Veronica SaccoSchool of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1338-3787
Sheila BodemerSchool of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4537-3017
Paul StoleeSchool of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5685-0843

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are many mobile health (mHealth) apps for older adult patients, but research has found that broadly speaking, mHealth still fails to meet the specific needs of older adult users. Others have highlighted the need to embed users in the mHealth design process in a fulsome and meaningful way. Co-design has been widely used in the development of mHealth apps and involves stakeholders in each phase of the design and development process. The involvement of older adults in the co-design processes is variable. To date, co-design approaches have tended toward embedding the stakeholders in early phases (eg, predesign and generative) but not throughout.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to reflect on the processes and lessons learned from engaging in an extended co-design process to develop an mHealth app for older adults, with older users contributing at each phase. This study aimed to design an mHealth tool to assist older adults in coordinating their care with health care professionals and caregivers.

methodsOur work to conceptualize, develop, and test the mHealth app consisted of 4 phases: phase 1, consulting stakeholders; phase 2, app development and co-designing with older adults; phase 3, field-testing with a smaller sample of older adult volunteer testers; and phase 4, reflecting, internally, on lessons learned from this process. In each phase, we drew on qualitative methods, including in-depth interviews and focus groups, all of which were analyzed in NVivo 11, using team-based thematic analysis.

resultsIn phase 1, we identified key features that older adults and primary care providers wanted in an app, and each user group identified different priority features (older adults principally sought support to use the mHealth app, whereas primary care providers prioritized recoding illnesses, immunizations, and appointments). Phases 2 and 3 revealed significant mismatches between what the older adult users wanted and what our developers were able and willing to deliver. We were unable to craft the app that our consultations recommended, which the older adult field testers asked for. In phase 4, we reflected on our abilities to embed the voices and perspectives of older adults throughout the project when working with a developer not familiar with or committed to the core principles of co-design. We draw on this challenging experience to highlight several recommendations for those embarking on a co-design process that includes developers and IT vendors, researchers, and older adult users.

conclusionsAlthough our final mHealth app did not reflect all the needs and wishes of our older adult testers, our consultation process identified key features and contextual information essential for those developing apps to support older adults in managing their health and health care.

Indexed as

appscare providerco-designelderlyhealth carehealth care providersmHealthmobile healtholder adultsqualitativeuser experience or UX design

Identifiers

PMID36306166
PMCPMC9652733

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.