Cited by 22Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsUsability and User Interface Design

Creating value with eHealth: identification of the value proposition with key stakeholders for the resilience navigator app

Open access
Lentferink, Aniek, Polstra, Louis, D’Souza, Austin, Oldenhuis, Hilbrand, Velthuijsen, Hugo, van Gemert-Pijnen, Lisette·2020·BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Abstract

Background: For a stress-management app to be persuasive and impactful, designers and developers should obtain a clear perspective of the value proposition according to key stakeholders before development. However, this is often not the case. In order to increase the chance of creating an impact by means of the Resilience Navigator app, this study aims to identify key stakeholders and work with them to gain an in-depth understanding of the value proposition of this stress-management app. Methods: The approach used in this study builds on the approaches taken by Van Limburg et al. and Van Woezik et al. An initial list of stakeholders was identified by means of a literature scan. Stakeholders on this initial list took an online survey to identify key stakeholders with a ranking system. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a subset of key stakeholders to identify the value proposition using the value proposition canvas as a framework for data collection. Finally, the value proposition was validated by key stakeholders during focus groups. Results: The key stakeholders identified included employees, employers, participation councils within organisations, HR advisors, product owners, company doctors, and business analysts. The interviews produced a list of approximately one hundred values from which fifteen core values were distilled. One example is to take into account time constraints experienced by users during stress periods. In general, the Resilience Navigator app’s main goal is to increase awareness of personal stress levels and causes of stress. In addition, the sub-goal is to increase skills for effective stress management. The focus groups validated the idea that the most important values were reflected in the value proposition and had been appropriately translated into design elements, according to key stakeholders. Conclusions: A thorough, bottom-up identification and validation of the value proposition for the Resilience Navigator app was obtained, reflecting key stakeholders’ varying ideas on this piece of eHealth technology. The results will facilitate the continued development of the Resilience Navigator app from the value specification phase to the design phase. In the design phase, the remaining assumptions regarding the app’s value proposition should be tested using rapid prototyping.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12911-020-1088-1

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Values should capture the whole range of stakeholder needs and wishes, not merely those of end users of the eHealth technology.

    “Second, values should capture the whole range of stakeholder needs and wishes, not merely those of end users of the eHealth technology”
  • In the included papers it was shown that stakeholder maps are not created from scratch but are based on data.

    “First, in the included papers it was shown that stakeholder maps are not created from scratch but are based on data.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [13]Van Gemert-Pijnen L Kelders SM Kip H Sanderman R eHealth research, theory and development 2018 1 Oxford, New York Routledge
  2. [37]Morgan DL Krueger RA King JA The focus group kit 1998 1 Thousand Oaks Sage Publications

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lentferink, A., Polstra, L., D’Souza, A., Oldenhuis, H., Velthuijsen, H., & van Gemert-Pijnen, L.
Affiliations
Hanze University of Applied Sciences (NL)
Corresponding author
Lentferink, Aniek
Venue
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published
2020-04-27
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
76-76
ISSN
1472-6947 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3020695712
Cited by
21
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2
FWCI
2.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Menzis
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
value proposition, stakeholder identification, e-health, value proposition canvas, stress awareness, occupational stress, workplace health, stakeholder validation, mobile application design
MeSH terms
Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Telemedicine, Mobile Applications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review