Evidence mapPaperPMID 35303895Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2022

Participatory methods in a digital setting: experiences from the co-creation of an eHealth tool for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Sara Lundell, Annika Toots, Pernilla Sönnerfors, Alexandra Halvarsson, Karin Wadell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Engaging women to set the research agenda for assisted vaginal birth.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
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

5 authors.

Sara Lundell *Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden. sara.lundell@umu.se.
Annika Toots *Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden.
Pernilla SönnerforsDivision of Physiotherapy, Department of Neurobiology, Caring Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden.
Alexandra HalvarssonDivision of Physiotherapy, Department of Neurobiology, Caring Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden.
Karin WadellDepartment of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUsing participatory methods to engage end-users in the development and design of eHealth is important to understand and incorporate their needs and context. Within participatory research, recent social distancing practice has forced a transition to digital communication platforms, a setting that warrants deeper understanding. The aim of this study was to describe the experiences of, and evaluate a digital co-creation process for developing an eHealth tool for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

methodsThe co-creation was guided by Participatory appreciative action and reflection, where a convenience sample (n = 17), including persons with COPD, health care professionals, relatives and a patient organization representative participated in six digital workshops. User instructions, technical equipment, and skilled support were provided if necessary. Workshops centred around different topics, with pre-recorded films, digital lectures and home assignments to up-skill participants. Process validity, experiences and ownership in the co-creation process were evaluated by repeated respondent validation, member checking, questionnaires and by assessing attendance. Data was analysed quantitatively or qualitatively as appropriate.

resultsThe co-creators were in general satisfied with the digital format of the workshops. Mean attendance and perceived engagement in workshops was high and the experience described as enjoyable. Engagement was facilitated by up-skilling activities and discussions in small groups. Few had used digital communication previously, and feelings ranging from excitement to concern were expressed initially. Technical issues, mainly audio related, were resolved with support. At completion, skills using equipment and digital platform surpassed expectations. Few disadvantages with the digital format were identified, and advantages included reduced travel, time efficiency and reduced infection risk.

conclusionsExperiences of digital co-creation were overwhelmingly positive, despite initial barriers related to computer naivety and use of digital equipment and platforms. The high level of satisfaction, engagement, attendance rates, and agreement between individual and group views suggests that a digital co-creation process is a feasible method. Several important success factors were identified, such as the provision of information and education on discussion topics in advance of workshops, as well as the smaller group discussions during workshops. The knowledge gained herein will be useful for future digital co-creation processes.

Indexed as

Pulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveTelemedicineHealth PersonnelHumansResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesCOPDPersonalised medicineTelemedicineUser involvementVideo conference

Identifiers

PMID35303895
PMCPMC8932463

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.