Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35793923›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

Codesign approaches involving older adults in the development of electronic healthcare tools: a systematic review.

Amy C Cole, Karthik Adapa, Amro Khasawneh, Daniel R Richardson, Lukasz Mazur

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Holding Complex Spaces Through Relational Work: A Qualitative Descriptive Study of Co-Design Facilitation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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.

Amy C ColeCarolina Health Informatics Program, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA amy_cole@med.unc.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9478-6005
Karthik AdapaCarolina Health Informatics Program, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3970-588X
Amro KhasawnehDepartment of Industrial Engineering, School of Engineering, Mercer University, Macon, Georgia, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3539-2473
Daniel R RichardsonLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9310-5773
Lukasz MazurCarolina Health Informatics Program, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9793-7999

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe primary aim was to review and synthesise the current evidence of how older adults are involved in codesign approaches to develop electronic healthcare tools (EHTs). The secondary aim was to identify how the codesign approaches used mutual learning techniques to benefit older adult participants.

designSystematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews 2020 checklist. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases were searched for studies from January 2010 to March 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were studies employing codesign approaches to develop an EHTs, and the study population was aged 60 years and older. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted for analysis and risk of bias. We evaluated the quality of studies using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center approach.

resultsTwenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. All studies used at least two involvement processes, with interviews and prototypes used most frequently. Through cross-classification, we found an increased utilisation of functional prototypes in studies reaching the 'empower' level of participation and found that studies which benefitted from mutual learning had a higher utilisation of specific involvement processes such as focus groups and functional prototyping.

conclusionsWe found gaps to support which involvement processes, participation levels and learning models should be employed when codesigning with older adults. This is important because higher levels of participation may increase the user's knowledge of technology, enhance learning and empower participants. To ensure studies optimise participation and learning of older adults when developing EHTs, there is a need to place more emphasis on the approaches promoting mutual learning. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021240013.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticeHealth FacilitiesAgedDelivery of Health CareElectronicsHumansMiddle AgedUnited Stateshealth informaticsinformation technologyqualitative researchstatistics & research methods

Identifiers

PMID35793923
PMCPMC9260797

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.