ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Cocreating the Visualization of Digital Mobility Outcomes: Delphi-Type Process With Patients.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
35 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent technological advances in wearable devices offer new potential for measuring mobility in real-world contexts. Mobilise-D has validated digital mobility outcomes to provide novel outcomes and end points in clinical research of 4 different long-term health conditions (Parkinson disease, multiple sclerosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and proximal femoral fracture). These outcomes also provide unique information that is important to patients; however, there is limited literature that explores the optimal methods to achieve this, such as the best way to visualize patients' data.
objectiveThis study aimed to identify meaningful outcomes for each condition and how to best visualize them from the perspective of end users.
methodsUsing a Delphi-type protocol with patients as subject matter experts, we gathered iterative feedback on the cocreation of visualizations through 3 rounds of questionnaires. An open-ended questionnaire was used in round 1 to understand what aspects of mobility were most influenced by their health condition. These responses were mapped onto relevant digital mobility outcomes and walking experiences and then prioritized for visualization. Using patient responses, we worked alongside researchers, clinicians, and a patient advisory group to develop visualizations that depicted a week of mobility data. During rounds 2 and 3, participants rated usefulness and ease of understanding on a 5-point Likert scale and provided unstructured feedback in comment boxes for each visualization. Visualizations were refined using the feedback from round 2 before receiving further feedback in round 3.
resultsParticipation varied across rounds 1 to 3 (n=48, n=79, and n=78, respectively). Round 1 identified important outcomes and contexts for each health condition, such as walking speed and stride length for people with Parkinson disease or multiple sclerosis and number of steps for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or proximal femoral fracture. The consensus was not reached for any visualization reviewed in round 2 or 3. Feedback was generally positive, and some participants reported that they were able to understand the visualization and interpret what the visualization represented.
conclusionsThrough the feedback provided and existing data visualization principles, we developed recommendations for future visualizations of mobility- and health-related data. Visualizations should be readable by ensuring that large and clear fonts are used and should be friendly for people with vision impairments, such as color blindness. Patients have a strong understanding of their own condition and its variability; hence, adding additional factors into visualizations is recommended to better reflect the nuances of a condition. Ensuring that outcomes and visualizations are meaningful requires close collaboration with patients throughout the development process.
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.