ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025
Processes Underpinning Successful Co-Design: Lessons From a Digital Health Project.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Gamified Assessment of Cognitive Impulsivity in Eating Disorders and Mental Ill-Health: Mixed Methods Study Incorporating Lived Experience Co-Design and Evaluation.JMIR serious games · 2026Article
- An Age-Adapted Co-Design Methodology for Community Health Research Involving Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- The role of co-design and co-creation methodologies in research supporting older adults living with HIV: A scoping review.PloS one · 2026Article
- Consumer Co-Design of an Online Resource to Build Communication Skills of Health Consumers: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Development of a Health Text Message System to Support Stroke Prevention: A Component of the Love Your Brain Digital Platform.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Co-Designing a Digital Stroke Prevention Platform: Leveraging Lived Experience and Expert Advice.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCo-design helps to align research with end-user needs, but there is no consistent method for reporting co-design methodology and evaluation. We share our experiences co-designing the Love Your Brain digital platform for stroke prevention. We evaluated the core attributes that guided our co-design approach, including recruitment, focus group coordination, participant engagement and satisfaction.
methodsOnline co-design focus groups were conducted fortnightly (May 2023 to March 2024) with two cohorts (health knowledge experts and community members; n = 8 sessions per cohort) to design the content and structure of Love Your Brain. Snowballing methods and purposive sampling were used to recruit participants in Australia. Coordination involved tracking the time spent by the research team for one round of focus groups. Participant engagement was measured through focus group attendance and survey feedback and analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Count and length of verbal and/or written contributions during focus groups were summarised with descriptive statistics as a measure of engagement, with differences between cohorts assessed using χ
resultsSixteen health knowledge experts (clinicians/researchers) and 28 community members expressed interest, of which 10 health knowledge experts and 12 community members (including 9 people with lived experience of stroke) participated. Conducting two identical focus groups required 29 h of project manager/coordinator time, 8-11 h for facilitators and 6.5-8.5 h for chief investigators. Most participants (86%) attended ≥ 5/8 focus groups. Engagement was enhanced through pre-reading material, structured/well-organised focus groups and experienced facilitators. All participants contributed at each focus group, with varying levels of input. Health knowledge experts preferred written contributions over verbal contributions and wrote longer messages compared to community members. Community members spoke for a longer duration than health knowledge experts. Participant satisfaction was high, with participants reporting that the research team 'always valued our opinions'. Importance was placed on a final evaluative focus group, and participants stated that their contributions were incorporated into the final product.
conclusionOur research emphasises relationships between coordination, participant engagement and satisfaction and the importance of considering resourcing requirements for successful co-design of digital health projects. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with lived experience, including caregivers of people with stroke, and members of the public, participated in the co-design focus groups. The Love Your Brain Management Committee includes people with lived experience of stroke who contributed to the oversight of this study and the preparation of this manuscript.
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.