Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39715947›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2024

An umbrella review on how digital health intervention co-design is conducted and described.

Alicia Kilfoy, Ting-Chen Chloe Hsu, Charlotte Stockton-Powdrell, Pauline Whelan, Charlene H Chu, Lindsay Jibb

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Building EVA (Journal of medical Internet research · 2026
    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

6 authors.

Alicia KilfoyLawrence Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, 155 College St, Toronto, ON, M5T 1P8, Canada.
Ting-Chen Chloe HsuCentre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0233-2469
Charlotte Stockton-PowdrellCentre for Health Informatics, Division of Imaging, Informatics and Data Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Pauline WhelanCentre for Health Informatics, Division of Imaging, Informatics and Data Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. Pauline.Whelan@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8689-3919
Charlene H ChuLawrence Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, 155 College St, Toronto, ON, M5T 1P8, Canada.
Lindsay JibbLawrence Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, 155 College St, Toronto, ON, M5T 1P8, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6995-2825

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Co-design has been suggested to improve intervention effectiveness and sustainability. However, digital health intervention co-design is inconsistently reported. This umbrella review aims to synthesize what is known about co-design of digital health interventions. We searched five databases from inception. Reviews which reported on co-design methodologies used in digital health were eligible. Information on review type, health conditions, and reported specifics of co-design were extracted and synthesized. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR2 tool. We included 21 reviews published between 2015 and 2023. Co-design participants included patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals. The frequency and breadth of participant involvement in co-design activities were reported in less than half of reviews. Participants evaluated intervention co-design as a positive process. All reviews were rated as critically low quality. This umbrella review highlights the inconsistent reporting of co-design in digital health. Here, we emphasize the importance of creating guidelines to direct co-design activities.

Identifiers

PMID39715947
PMCPMC11666587

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.