Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36542458›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

Two-way Automated Text Messaging Support From Community Pharmacies for Medication Taking in Multiple Long-term Conditions: Human-Centered Design With Nominal Group Technique Development Study.

Gemma Donovan, Nicola Hall, Felicity Smith, Jonathan Ling, Scott Wilkes

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gemma DonovanGenerated Health, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0588-2666
Nicola HallUniversity of Sunderland, Sunderland, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0216-512X
Felicity SmithSchool of Pharmacy, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9565-758X
Jonathan LingFaculty of Health Sciences and Wellbeing, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2932-4474
Scott WilkesSchool of Medicine, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2949-7711
University of Sunderland · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReviews of digital communication technologies suggest that they can be effective in supporting medication use; however, their use alongside nondigital components is unclear. We also explored the delivery of a digital communication intervention in a relatively novel setting of community pharmacies and how such an intervention might be delivered to patients with multiple long-term conditions. This meant that despite the large number of intervention examples available in the literature, design questions remained, which we wanted to explore with key stakeholders. Examples of how to involve stakeholders in the design of complex health care interventions are lacking; however, human-centered design (HCD) has been suggested as a potential approach.

objectiveThis study aimed to design a new community pharmacy text messaging intervention to support medication use for multiple long-term conditions, with patient and health care professional stakeholders in primary care.

methodsHCD was used to map the intervention "journey" and identify design questions to explore with patients and health care professionals. Six prototypes were developed to communicate the intervention concept, and a modified version of the Nominal Group Technique was used to gather feedback. Nominal group meetings generated qualitative data using questions about the aspects that participants liked for each prototype and any suggested changes. The discussion was analyzed using a framework approach to transform feedback into statements. These statements were then ranked using a web-based questionnaire to establish a consensus about what elements of the design were valued by stakeholders and what changes to the design were most important.

resultsA total of 30 participants provided feedback on the intervention design concept over 5 nominal group meetings (21 health care professionals and 9 patients) with a 57% (17/30) response rate to the ranking questionnaire. Furthermore, 51 proposed changes in the intervention were generated from the framework analysis. Of these 51 changes, 27 (53%) were incorporated into the next design stage, focusing on changes that were ranked highest. These included suggestions for how text message content might be tailored, patient information materials, and the structure for pharmacist consultation. All aspects that the participants liked were retained in the future design and provided evidence that the proposed intervention concept had good acceptability.

conclusionsHCD incorporating the Nominal Group Technique is an appropriate and successful approach for obtaining feedback from key stakeholders as part of an iterative design process. This was particularly helpful for our intervention, which combined digital and nondigital components for delivery in the novel setting of a community pharmacy. This approach enabled the collection and prioritization of useful multiperspective feedback to inform further development and testing of our intervention. This model has the potential to minimize research waste by gathering feedback early in the complex intervention design process.

Indexed as

community pharmacycomplex interventionshuman-centered designmedication adherencetext messaging

Identifiers

PMID36542458
OpenAlexW4312095052

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.