Evidence mapPaperPMID 41875427Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026

Coproducing an Online Platform for People With Long-Term Physical Health Conditions: Development and Usability Study.

Hannah Grace Jones, Grace Lavelle, Elly Aylwin-Foster, Ewan Carr, Alan Simpson, Matthew Hotopf, Vanessa Lawrence

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Hannah Grace Jones *Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5336-7856
Grace Lavelle *Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3768-1797
Elly Aylwin-FosterDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7100-4799
Ewan CarrDepartment of Biostatistics & Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1146-4922
Alan SimpsonFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3286-9846
Matthew HotopfDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3980-4466
Vanessa LawrenceHealth Service and Population Research, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7852-2018

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is relatively limited psychological support dedicated to people living with long-term physical health conditions and subthreshold depressive disorder. Online peer support may be an appropriate intervention to help bolster patients' mental well-being to prevent progression of their symptoms to major depressive disorder. For interventions to be successfully integrated into the self-management routines of people with long-term physical health conditions, they should be co-designed to ensure that they align with the wants and needs of the target audience.

objectiveThis study aims to coproduce an online peer support intervention with people with lived experience, software experts, clinicians, and academics through an iterative process of co-design and subsequent co-validation through usability testing.

methodsWe followed a 4-stage coproduction process: co-assess, co-design, co-validate, and co-deliver. Our research advisory group was actively involved in all stages, consisting of 1 coinvestigator and 6 people with lived experience of long-term physical and/or mental health comorbidities. The co-assess and co-design stages involved our participatory design panel, which included 10 members living with various long-term conditions. The participatory design panel participated in online focus groups to assess their unmet psychosocial needs and then co-designed the intervention prototype through online workshops with software developers. The co-validation stage involved an additional group of participants (n=12) with long-term physical health conditions. During co-validation, the prototype underwent usability testing, including think-aloud exercises and semistructured interviews. Content analysis identified the priorities for the iterative development that formed the basis of further research advisory group co-design workshops. The next stage, co-delivery, involved coproducing the protocol of a feasibility and acceptability randomized controlled trial.

resultsParticipants highlighted that a platform must feel safe and trustworthy for the space to support the mental well-being of those living with long-term health conditions. The participatory design panel co-designed a platform prototype to meet this need. During the co-validation stage, the think-aloud exercises identified common issues related to navigation challenges and feature glitches. Content analysis of the semistructured interviews confirmed that the community forum, resources, and other platform pages were appropriate and acceptable, but revealed usability concerns. Participants stressed the need for intuitive navigation and suggested new features that would enhance user experience. Facilitators and barriers to engagement were also noted, including the importance of fostering trust in the platform's ethos and branding to create a safe space. Through iterative development and subsequent usability testing, the final prototype was approved.

conclusionsWe have provided a worked example of a comprehensive, coproduction process where we worked alongside people with lived experience to successfully design an online peer support platform with embedded psychoeducation. The platform, called CommonGround, is ready to be evaluated in a feasibility randomized controlled trial.

Indexed as

InternetChronic DiseaseFemaleFocus GroupsHumansPeer GroupSocial Supportcoproduction, physical healthlong-term conditionsmental healthonline peer supportpeer supportpsychosocial supportusability testing

Identifiers

PMID41875427
PMCPMC13058536

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.