ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024
Investigating the Best Practices for Engagement in Remote Participatory Design: Mixed Methods Analysis of 4 Remote Studies With Family Caregivers.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using Partner-Driven Maximum Variance Sampling to Form a Lived Experience Panel: Step-by-Step Tutorial.Journal of participatory medicine · 2026Article
- Developing mHealth IT for Older Adult Medication Safety: Remote Participatory Co-Design Using the RAPID Method.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Sociodemographic Drivers of Recruitment and Attrition in Digital Neurological Research: Longitudinal Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Observational
- Advancing Brain-Computer Interface Closed-Loop Systems for Neurorehabilitation: Systematic Review of AI and Machine Learning Innovations in Biomedical Engineering.JMIR biomedical engineering · 2025Review
- Optimizing Participant Engagement in Cyberhealth Co-Design: Course-of-Action Framework Analysis.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDigital health interventions are a promising method for delivering timely support to underresourced family caregivers. The uptake of digital health interventions among caregivers may be improved by engaging caregivers in participatory design (PD). In recent years, there has been a shift toward conducting PD remotely, which may enable participation by previously hard-to-reach groups. However, little is known regarding how best to facilitate engagement in remote PD among family caregivers.
objectiveThis study aims to (1) understand the context, quality, and outcomes of family caregivers' engagement experiences in remote PD and (2) learn which aspects of the observed PD approach facilitated engagement or need to be improved.
methodsWe analyzed qualitative and quantitative data from evaluation and reflection surveys and interviews completed by research and community partners (family caregivers) across 4 remote PD studies. Studies focused on building digital health interventions for family caregivers. For each study, community partners met with research partners for 4 to 5 design sessions across 6 months. After each session, partners completed an evaluation survey. In 1 of the 4 studies, research and community partners completed a reflection survey and interview. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize quantitative evaluation and reflection survey data, while reflexive thematic analysis was used to understand qualitative data.
resultsIn 62.9% (83/132) of evaluations across projects 1-3, participants described the session as "very effective." In 74% (28/38) of evaluations for project 4, participants described feeling "extremely satisfied" with the session. Qualitative data relating to the engagement context identified that the identities of partners, the technological context of remote PD, and partners' understanding of the project and their role all influenced engagement. Within the domain of engagement quality, relationship-building and co-learning; satisfaction with prework, design activities, time allotted, and the final prototype; and inclusivity and the distribution of influence contributed to partners' experience of engagement. Outcomes of engagement included partners feeling an ongoing interest in the project after its conclusion, gratitude for participation, and a sense of meaning and self-esteem.
conclusionsThese results indicate high satisfaction with remote PD processes and few losses specific to remote PD. The results also demonstrate specific ways in which processes can be changed to improve partner engagement and outcomes. Community partners should be involved from study inception in defining the problem to be solved, the approach used, and their roles within the project. Throughout the design process, online tools may be used to check partners' satisfaction with design processes and perceptions of inclusivity and power-sharing. Emphasis should be placed on increasing the psychosocial benefits of engagement (eg, sense of community and purpose) and increasing opportunities to participate in disseminating findings and in future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.