Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37957776›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2023

Adapting co-design methodology to a virtual environment: co-designing a communication intervention for adult patients in critical care.

Laura Istanboulian, Louise Rose, Yana Yunusova, Craig Dale

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Laura IstanboulianDaphne Cockwell School of Nursing, Toronto Metropolitan University, 288 Church St., Toronto, M5B 1Z5, Canada. Listanbo@torontomu.ca.
Louise RoseFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, James Clerk Maxwell Building, 57 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8WA, UK.
Yana YunusovaDepartment of Speech Language Pathology, University of Toronto, 500 University Ave. #160, Toronto, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Craig DaleTory Trauma Program, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Ave., Toronto, M4N 3M5, Canada.
Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBHealth Sciences Centre · CAToronto Rehabilitation Institute · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch co-design is recommended to reduce misalignment between researcher and end-user needs and priorities for healthcare innovation. Engagement of intensive care unit patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders in co-design has historically relied upon face-to-face meetings. Here, we report on our co-design processes for the development of a bundled intensive care unit patient communication intervention that used exclusively virtual meeting methods in response to COVID-19 pandemic social distancing restrictions.

methodsWe conducted a series of virtual co-design sessions with a committee of stakeholder participants recruited from a medical-surgical intensive care unit of a community teaching hospital in Toronto, Canada. Published recommendations for co-design methods were used with exclusively virtual adaptations to improve ease of stakeholder participation as well as the quality and consistency of co-design project set-up, facilitation, and evaluation. Virtual adaptations included the use of email for distributing information, videos, and electronic evaluations as well as the use of a videoconferencing platform for synchronous meetings. We used a flexible meeting plan including asynchronous virtual methods to reduce attendance barriers for time-constrained participants.

resultsCo-design participants included a patient and a family member (n = 2) and professionally diverse healthcare providers (n = 9), plus a facilitator. Overall, participants were engaged and reported a positive experience with the virtually adapted co-design process. Reported benefits included incorporation of diverse viewpoints in the communication intervention design and implementation plan. Challenges related to lack of hands-on time during development of the co-designed intervention and participant availability to meet regularly albeit virtually.

conclusionsThis report describes the methods, benefits, and challenges of adapting in-person co-design methods to a virtual environment to produce a bundled communication intervention for use in the adult intensive care unit during the COVID-19 pandemic. Adapting recommended co-design methods to a virtual environment can provide further opportunities for stakeholder participation in intervention design.

Indexed as

Co-designCommunicationCritical careVirtual

Identifiers

PMID37957776
PMCPMC10644625
OpenAlexW4388651988

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.