Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36787170›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2023

Diversity in Stakeholder Groups in Generative Co-design for Digital Health: Assembly Procedure and Preliminary Assessment.

Pieter Vandekerckhove, Job Timmermans, Antoinette de Bont, Marleen de Mul

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Pieter VandekerckhoveErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0858-6563
Job TimmermansDepartment of Military Management Studies, Netherlands Defence Academy, Breda, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4250-275X
Antoinette de BontTilburg School of Social & Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0745-4537
Marleen de MulErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3447-5920
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NLNetherlands Defence Academy · NLTilburg University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiverse knowledge and ways of thinking are claimed to be important when involving stakeholders such as patients, care professionals, and care managers in a generative co-design (GCD) process. However, this claim is rather general and has not been operationalized; therefore, the influence of various stakeholders on the GCD process has not been empirically tested.

objectiveIn this study, we aimed to take the first step in assessing stakeholder diversity by formulating a procedure to assemble a group of diverse stakeholders and test its influence in a GCD process.

methodsTo test the procedure and assess its influence on the GCD process, a case was selected involving a foundation that planned to develop a serious game to help people with cancer return to work. The procedure for assembling a stakeholder group involves snowball sampling and individual interviews, leading to the formation of 2 groups of stakeholders. Thirteen people were identified through snowball sampling, and they were briefly interviewed to assess their knowledge, inference experience, and communication skills. Two diverse stakeholder groups were formed, with one more potent than the other. The influence of both stakeholder groups on the GCD process was qualitatively assessed by comparing the knowledge output and related knowledge processing in 2 identical GCD workshops.

resultsOur hypothesis on diverse stakeholders was confirmed, although it also appeared that merely assessing the professional background of stakeholders was not sufficient to reach the full potential of the GCD process. The more potently diverse group had a stronger influence on knowledge output and knowledge processing, resulting in a more comprehensive problem definition and more precisely described solutions. In the less potently diverse group, none of the stakeholders had experience with abduction-2 inferencing, and this did not emerge in the GCD process, suggesting that at least one stakeholder should have previous abduction-2 experience.

conclusionsA procedure to assemble a stakeholder group with specific criteria to assess the diversity of knowledge, ways of thinking, and communication can improve the potential of the GCD process and the resulting digital health.

Indexed as

collaborative designdesign methodologydigital healthparticipatory designstakeholder involvement

Identifiers

PMID36787170
PMCPMC9975926
OpenAlexW4312395947

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.