ArticleBMC primary care2026
Theory-based evaluation of user participation in MedPrev, a digital preventive intervention in primary care in France.
Article in BMC primary care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Theory-based evaluation of user participation in MedPrev, a digital preventive intervention in primary care in France.BMC primary care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital health interventions, particularly those delivered via mobile health, are transforming the way health prevention is provided. Evaluating user participation and its contribution to intervention outcomes is key to ensuring the effectiveness of an intervention. This study aims to identify conditions shaping user participation in MedPrev, a digital health intervention designed to deliver prevention in primary care.
methodsWe conducted a theory-driven qualitative study following the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ). A conceptual framework for user participation was developed prior to data collection, informed by a scoping review and co-creation workshops with stakeholders, which did not constitute data for the present study. Data collection then combined interviews with patients (n = 8) and health professionals (n = 5) with observations of MedPrev consultations (n = 10) across two French regions. Thematic analysis was performed using NVivo® software. Our findings were subsequently validated and refined through three deliberative workshops involving users, health professionals, and program designers (n = 19 participants).
resultsParticipation in MedPrev intervention is influenced by interdependent factors relating to professional and organizational settings, digital interventions, and user conditions. Three key themes emerged from the analysis: i) professional/organizational context, characterized by factors such as physician shortages, time constraints, and physician training in prevention; ii) intervention design elements, including technical barriers (e.g., web-based platform, login complexity) and lack of personalization; and iii) user factors, encompassing digital literacy, health literacy, and life circumstances.
conclusionUser participation in digital health interventions is closely related to contextual factors. A systemic approach is essential in any attempt to address barriers related to adoption and usage, and to optimize the effectiveness of user participation in MedPrev and similar interventions. Recommendations include facilitating adoption, improving the feasibility of human intervention, personalizing the digital intervention, and strengthening hybrid follow-up approaches to combine digital and human interaction. Specific recommendations emphasize the value of hybrid models that combine digital innovations with human support to make digital preventive interventions effective and to ensure long-term engagement.
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.