Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42302232›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Participatory Rapid Appraisal and Focus Groups to co-design technology-supported integrated care.

Bridget O' Sullivan, Paul Davis, Regina Connolly, Shane O' Hanlon, Marije Hamaker, Hans Wilders, Cindy Kenis, Una Kearns, Trudy Corrigan, Ciara White and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

19 authors.

Bridget O' SullivanFaculty of Science and Health, School of Nursing, Psychotherapy, and Community Health, Dublin City University Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-3086-1082
Paul DavisDublin City University Business School, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-0306-2664
Regina ConnollyDublin City University Business School, Dublin, Ireland.
Shane O' HanlonUniversity College Dublin - National University of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Marije HamakerUtrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Hans WildersKU Leuven University: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Cindy KenisKU Leuven University: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Una KearnsmyPatientSpace, Digital Healthcare developer and provider, Dublin.
Trudy CorriganSchool of Policy and Practice, Institute of Education, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.
Ciara WhiteSchool of Nursing, Psychotherapy, and Community Health, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.
Eleonore LehnUniversity Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Marianne GroslGi Sustainalbe Innovations, Paris, France.
Lucia FerraraBocconi University, Milan, Italy.
Vittoria ArditoBocconi University, Milan, Italy.
Celia FourrierUniversity Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Pierre SoubeyronInstitute Bergonie, Bordeaux, France.
Siri RostoftOslo University Hospital Internal Medicine Research Unit: Oslo Universitetssykehus Enhet for Indremedisinsk Forskning, Oslo, Norway.
Vincent ThevenetUniversity Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Anthony StainesCentre eIntegrated Care (CeIC), Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCo-design methods, which create innovation tailored to the end-user needs and setting, are increasingly used to improve research uptake and impact. Peer review and methodologists have emphasised the need for early, meaningful, and continuous involvement of stakeholders, and the transparent and detailed reporting of co-design methods. The implementation of both complex interventions (such as an integrated care pathway), and technology, into healthcare is difficult and has high failure rates. Designing, implementing, and adapting interventions to ensure they work in the local context requires in-depth understanding of multiple end-users' needs, processes, and contexts. Achieving this requires early, meaningful, and continuous engagement between multiple end-users. This study aimed to contribute to co-design research by reporting the: 1) process used to develop and test Participatory Rapid Appraisal and Focus Groups methods to co-design integrated care. 2) details of how the method was applied in the GERONTE project. 3) core steps involved in this co-design method (to facilitate use and/ or adaptation of the method).

aimThe study aimed to develop, test, and evaluate a co-design method that: I. enabled early, continuous, and meaningful engagement of multiple end-users in different locations and across different design iterations. II. enabled timely feedback and checking between the end-users and design team. III. optimised end-users participation by being flexible in the time, duration, and method of data collection and feedback. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe Participatory Rapid Appraisal and Focus Group to co-design integrated care method was developed in four stages. The first stage involved defining the project's co-design needs and reviewing the co-design literature to identify how to meet these. GERONTE aimed to co-design, evaluate, and prepare for EU-wide deployment, an integrated technology-supported care pathway for older adults with cancer and other morbidities. Focus Groups and Participatory Rapid Appraisal, in combination, were chosen as an empirically-based and practical approach. Focus Groups (FG) provided a participatory-based way to collect data in order to identify and agree multiple stakeholders' needs and collective priorities. Participatory Rapid Appraisal (PRA) provided a timely way; to gain participant feedback on the data collected; and, to ensure accuracy in the data sent to the pathway and technology design teams. The second stage involved applying the method in the GERONTE Project (using meetings between the project team, technologists, and older adults to develop a co-design protocol for the project). The third stage involved the use, refinement, evaluation, and reporting of the co-design method. The fourth stage, evaluation of the method, is ongoing. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: This study resulted in the development of a structured approach to using Participatory Rapid Appraisal and Focus Groups in combination to co-design technology-supported integrated care. This method is proposed as an evidenced-based, practical, user-friendly way to co-design (or adapt an existing design) an integrated technology-supported care pathway. This co-design method involves three cycles of design. Each cycle involves multidisciplinary FG to collect semi-structured data followed by rapid analysis and feedback of the FG data to the participants to design or refine the intervention.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health Care, IntegratedFocus GroupsHumans

Identifiers

PMID42302232
PMCPMC13271751

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.