ArticleBMJ open2026
Patient engagement in digital health: a preliminary observation on user-centred and stakeholder feedback.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
designProspective cohort study
settingIn this pilot study, we recruited patients from a secondary pain clinic in Boston, Massachusetts.
participantsIn this pilot study, we recruited patients from a secondary pain clinic within the Spaulding Rehabilitation network in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. We enrolled 37 patients who initially came in for a clinical visit with the principal investigator of the study. Of the 37 patients, 14 patients who continued to enrol/join after December 2024 received the 'DigitalPulse' to drive engagement.
objectivesTo present a roadmap for our efforts to contextualise engagement in our digital health technology study and showcase our attempts to incorporate an engagement approach inspired by the Method for Program Adaptation through Community Engagement. Building on this, we further incorporated continued feedback and revision beyond the prototype of the user-centred feedback form ('DigitalPulse') to include expanded stakeholders such as clinicians and research assistants.
resultsFrom these patients, we observed that our approach produced highly variable changes in engagement with slight increases at the group level.
conclusionFrom our observations, we have found that it is important to incorporate iterative refinements and expanded stakeholder involvement in designing patient-centred digital health tools to improve engagement. Overall, we report a process to address engagement and emphasise the need for continuous personalisation in digital health interventions.
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.