Cited by 96Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsMental Health and Patient Involvement

Participatory Methods to Engage Health Service Users in the Development of Electronic Health Resources: Systematic Review

Open access
Moore, Gaye, Wilding, Helen, Gray, Kathleen, Castle, David·2019·Journal of Participatory Medicine

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: When health service providers (HSP) plan to develop electronic health (eHealth) resources for health service users (HSU), the latter's involvement is essential. Typically, however, HSP, HSU, and technology developers engaged to produce the resources lack expertise in participatory design methodologies suited to the eHealth context. Furthermore, it can be difficult to identify an established method to use, or determine how to work stepwise through any particular process. OBJECTIVE: We sought to summarize the evidence about participatory methods and frameworks used to engage HSU in the development of eHealth resources from the beginning of the design process. METHODS: We searched for studies reporting participatory processes in initial development of eHealth resources from 2006 to 2016 in 9 bibliographic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Emcare, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ACM Guide to Computing Literature, and IEEE Xplore. From 15,117 records initially screened on title and abstract for relevance to eHealth and early participatory design, 603 studies were assessed for eligibility on full text. The remaining 90 studies were rated by 2 reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool Version 2011 (Pluye et al; MMAT) and analyzed with respect to health area, purpose, technology type, and country of study. The 30 studies scoring 90% or higher on MMAT were included in a detailed qualitative synthesis. RESULTS: Of the 90 MMAT-rated studies, the highest reported (1) health areas were cancer and mental disorders, (2) eHealth technologies were websites and mobile apps, (3) targeted populations were youth and women, and (4) countries of study were the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. Of the top 30 studies the highest reported participatory frameworks were User-Centered Design, Participatory Action Research Framework, and the Center for eHealth Research and Disease Management (CeHRes) Roadmap, and the highest reported model underpinning development and engagement was Social Cognitive Theory. Of the 30 studies, 4 reported on all the 5 stages of the CeHRes Roadmap. CONCLUSIONS: The top 30 studies yielded 24 participatory frameworks. Many studies referred to using participatory design methods without reference to a framework. The application of a structured framework such as the CeHRes Roadmap and a model such as Social Cognitive Theory creates a foundation for a well-designed eHealth initiative that ensures clarity and enables replication across participatory design projects. The framework and model need to be clearly articulated and address issues that include resource availability, responsiveness to change, and the criteria for good practice. This review creates an information resource for future eHealth developers, to guide the design of their eHealth resource with a framework that can support further evaluation and development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017053838; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=53838.

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 · 10.2196/11474

Cites

152 of 152 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?

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. [2]Okun S Caligtan C Nelson R Staggers N The engaged ePatient Health Informatics: An Interprofessional Approach 2017 St Louis, Missouri Elsevier 204 19
  2. [7]Toraldo ML Mangia G Consiglio S Mercurio R A model for value creation: key role of the users as co-producers of e-health services Proceedings IFKAD 2013 2013 International Forum on Knowledge Asset Dynamics June 12-14, 2013 Zagreb, Croatia 1057 70

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moore, G., Wilding, H., Gray, K., & Castle, D.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Moore, Gaye
Venue
Journal of Participatory Medicine
Published
2019-02-22
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
e11474
ISSN
2152-7202 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2904219385
Cited by
95
References
152
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2
FWCI
0.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Participatory Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
University of Melbourne
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
participatory design, user engagement, health care consumers, participatory approach, user-centered design, participatory action research, social cognitive theory, mobile health apps, health websites, cancer, mental illness, youth, women, health technology development, health information systems, health information privacy

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