ArticleJMIR human factors2026
Developing mHealth IT for Older Adult Medication Safety: Remote Participatory Co-Design Using the RAPID Method.
Article in JMIR human factors, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Participatory co-design is a design approach that involves end users in intervention design and its use in health care applications has become widespread. Traditionally, co-design has been conducted in person in a laboratory-based setting; however, it has recently shifted to being performed remotely. Remote co-design has the potential to overcome some of the limitations of traditional in-person approaches, including expanding a study's geographic reach, recruiting participants from underrepresented groups, reducing power imbalances between researchers and participants, and enhancing engagement through online tools. Given these benefits, further reporting and refinement of remote co-design methods are needed. Objective: This paper's objective is to present our Remote and Accessible Participatory Intervention Design (RAPID) method and discuss the choices and challenges we encountered adapting participatory co-design for remote use. Methods: We adapted our previously developed 5-step in-person participatory co-design method for health intervention design. To apply the adapted co-design method, we recruited 2 groups of 5 participants (one of older adult pharmacy patients and the other of pharmacy staff) to design a digital kiosk for use by older adults to promote safe over-the-counter medication purchases in retail pharmacies. Results: Adaptations made to the co-design process were classified under the following categories: facilitation; collaboration, communication, and sensemaking; accessibility and universality; tangible tools and games; and research compliance. Anecdotally, the remote co-design process took longer when compared to in person due to shorter sessions and between-session refinement, but it allowed for flexible scheduling and makeup sessions when required. Conclusions: Our RAPID method offers an approach to remote co-design that other teams can implement or adapt to their needs. Our experiences with RAPID identify certain drawbacks to remote co-design; however, these are balanced by advantages in convenience and flexibility.
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.