SynthesisSystematic reviews2026
Co-designing interventions for patients with inflammatory arthritis: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCo-designing interventions for patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) can help optimise healthcare delivery and improve patient engagement in their care. We conducted a systematic review of co-designed interventions for people living with IA. We assessed the following: (a) Intervention effectiveness, (b) the co-design phases used, and (c) barriers and enablers to conducting a co-design study.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index (Web of Science) in October 2022, with an updated search conducted in March 2024. All study designs were eligible for inclusion. Experimental studies were quality assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2 and ROBINS-I). The study is reported according to the PRISMA guidelines.
resultsWe screened 11,091 reports, and 22 met the eligibility criteria. A range of co-designed interventions was identified, such as patient decision-making tools, applications for monitoring clinical and patient-reported outcomes, rehabilitation, and educational interventions. There was a paucity of psychosocial support interventions. All projects involved several stages of intervention development, including needs assessment, ideation, prototyping, and evaluation. Fifteen projects conducted pilot testing of their interventions, mainly assessing usability, feasibility, and acceptability metrics. Common barriers to co-design included poor communication, issues with stakeholder representativeness, and resource constraints. Key enablers of successful co-design were iterative rounds of prototyping and feedback, engagement of diverse stakeholders, and utilisation of varied and flexible methods.
conclusionCo-design is an adaptable approach for developing IA interventions and improving usability and feasibility through iterative, broad stakeholder engagement. However, its clinical effectiveness remains unproven, and common co-design barriers, such as communication challenges and limited stakeholder diversity persist. There is a need for more work on co-designed psychosocial support tools. Future work should also focus on establishing the clinical effectiveness of co-designed interventions to justify their continued development and implementation in IA care.
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.