ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025
User Input in the Development of Digital Sexual Health Tools: A Scoping Review and Guidance for Tool Developers.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background or contextStudies reporting the use of digital tools to promote the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted and blood borne infections (STBBIs) have proliferated in recent years. Previous reviews highlight variability in the input sought from users in tool development, and its contribution to impact.
objectiveThis scoping review sought to describe approaches to seeking and utilising user input, with the goal of providing guidance for developers. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and the Social Science Citation Index and results screened by two reviewers. The reference lists of included studies and review papers were also checked. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Peer reviewed qualitative and mixed methods studies seeking user input on digital tools promoting the prevention and treatment of STBBIs, from prototyping onwards, published from after 2014 in English, were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Reported methods and findings were charted in Excel and synthesised using content analysis to provide an overview of methods and domains of user input and utilisation of this input. MAIN
resultsA total of 1838 unique titles and abstracts and the full text of 50 publications were screened. Data was charted from 37 eligible studies reporting findings from 34 projects developing digital health tools, including smartphone/tablet applications, websites/web-based applications, chatbots, interactive automated SMS, and purpose-built tools within dating and social media applications. Studies reported on tools developed for use by diverse target populations. The most common domain of input reported was usability (n = 31), while others-namely, satisfaction (n = 27), acceptability (n = 25), formative (n = 24), impact (n = 22), accessibility (n = 17), and engagement (n = 11)-were reported less consistently. User views were sought using qualitative methods such as interviews, focus groups and open-ended survey questions, more often in combination with quantitative measures such as participant-rated measures and engagement analytics. User suggestions for changes were reported in relation to three in four projects studied but incorporation of changes in less than half of projects. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsThis review demonstrates considerable homogeneity in reported user input in the development of digital health tools. Input from users as co-designers may improve the impact of tools on their intended outcomes. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This literature review brought together a group of researchers who have sought user input in the development of digital sexual health tools, but, due to resource limitations, did not involve potential users themselves, who are of diverse and disparate groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.