Evidence mapPaperPMID 40329348Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2025

The use of personas to involve consumers in healthcare co-design: a scoping review.

Amanda Dominello, Colleen Cheek, Robyn Clay-Williams

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. "There Was a Light Bulb Moment": Using Persona Dyads to Empathise, Explore and Develop Person-Centred Solutions in Mental Health Service Co-Design.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Human digital twins in women's health nursing.Women's health nursing (Seoul, Korea) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

3 authors.

Amanda DominelloAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia. amanda.dominello@hdr.mq.edu.au.
Colleen CheekAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia.
Robyn Clay-WilliamsAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia.

Funding

Medical Research Future Fund, Commonwealth of Australia APP 2018361
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConsumer involvement in healthcare co-design is increasingly mandated to ensure health services are consumer-focussed. Facilitating involvement of consumers where they can most meaningfully contribute, especially those from priority populations, is challenging. In healthcare, personas are hypothetical representations that help to establish an understanding of the perspectives and experiences of individuals. These hypothetical profiles are an innovative, safe and creative participatory method. The aim of this scoping review was to identify the key characteristics of persona use to involve consumers in healthcare co-design.

methodA systematic search of six databases: CINAHL; EMBASE; Medline; PsycInfo; Scopus; and Web of Science Core Collection, identified peer-reviewed literature published from inception to November 2024 that reported co-design with consumers using personas in healthcare. No limits were placed on study design or country. Conference abstracts and grey literature were excluded. Vargas' framework was used to identify the stages of co-design where personas were used. The PROGRESS-Plus tool was used to identify how factors that stratify health opportunities and outcomes were considered in persona development or co-design.

resultsFrom 1,541 articles screened, 29 studies were included in the review. Studies reported used mixed (n = 12) or qualitative (n = 9) methods or were descriptive (n = 8); all but two studies were conducted in high-income countries. Personas have been used to involve consumers across all co-design processes but not consistently across all: identify (n = 1); analyse (n = 29); define (n = 26); and design (n = 8). Personas were reported to be both an effective tool to promote a user-centred approach in co-design and a valuable participatory method. The main limitations of personas are that they are resource-intensive and may be biased or unauthentic. Personas have been used to represent and involve priority populations in co-design studies although religion, race/ethnicity, socio-economic position and education are not often considered.

conclusionThe use of personas to facilitate a reflective analysis of user needs and formation of responsive actions to improve health system access is promising. Attention to the inclusion of priority populations and identification of relevant stakeholders and context at the commencement of co-design will strengthen this approach. This review illustrates a staged process with examples from existing literature.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationDelivery of Health CareHumansCo-designConsumer involvementDiversityEquityInclusiveParticipatory methodPersonasPriority populationsPROGRESS-PlusUser-centred approach

Identifiers

PMID40329348
PMCPMC12054091

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.