ArticleJMIR human factors2025
Optimizing Participant Engagement in Cyberhealth Co-Design: Course-of-Action Framework Analysis.
Article in JMIR human factors, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Co-design is recognized for its potential to enhance the usability of products through active user participation. However, participation alone does not guarantee the effectiveness of the resulting product. Understanding participants' engagement during co-design activities can provide valuable insights into their motivations, concerns, and contributions, which are critical to achieving successful outcomes. Objective: This study aims to analyze participant engagement in a digital health co-design parent project focusing on developing a tool to facilitate support-seeking for elderly caregivers. Methods: The parent project included 74 participants from 3 categories: caregivers, health care and social service professionals, and community workers. Testimonies for this study were collected from 20 participants using the self-confrontation interview methodology. Engagement was analyzed qualitatively using the course-of-action framework. The engagements were organized into emergent themes. The analysis focused on variations in engagement patterns across participant categories and sessions. Results: A total of 3 themes of engagement were identified: tool design, participant needs, and contextual situations. Engagement was distributed similarly across themes, except for community workers, who were more focused on needs (52/94, 42%) than tool design (25/62, 20%). There was significant variation in engagement over sessions, with tool design being more prominent during specific sessions (co-design sessions CoD5, CoD7, and CoD8) and less important during others (CoD4, AC2 [advisory committee session], CoD6, and AC3). Activities directly tied to design tasks significantly enhanced engagement with tool design. These results underscore the influence of activity types in shaping participants' focus and involvement. Conclusions: This study highlights the role of affordances in co-design activities to balance engagement across design, collaboration, and participation dimensions. By strategically leveraging affordances, future co-design projects can optimize engagement and ensure more effective outcomes.
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.