Cited by 135Health Policy Implementation ScienceInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social DevelopmentDelphi Technique in Research

Integrating Evidence From Systematic Reviews, Qualitative Research, and Expert Knowledge Using Co-Design Techniques to Develop a Web-Based Intervention for People in the Retirement Transition

Open access
O'Brien, Nicola, Heaven, Ben, Teal, Gemma, Evans, Elizabeth H, Cleland, Claire, Moffatt, Suzanne, Sniehotta, Falko F, White, Martin +2 more·2016·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Integrating stakeholder involvement in complex health intervention design maximizes acceptability and potential effectiveness. However, there is little methodological guidance about how to integrate evidence systematically from various sources in this process. Scientific evidence derived from different approaches can be difficult to integrate and the problem is compounded when attempting to include diverse, subjective input from stakeholders. OBJECTIVE: The intent of the study was to describe and appraise a systematic, sequential approach to integrate scientific evidence, expert knowledge and experience, and stakeholder involvement in the co-design and development of a complex health intervention. The development of a Web-based lifestyle intervention for people in retirement is used as an example. METHODS: Evidence from three systematic reviews, qualitative research findings, and expert knowledge was compiled to produce evidence statements (stage 1). Face validity of these statements was assessed by key stakeholders in a co-design workshop resulting in a set of intervention principles (stage 2). These principles were assessed for face validity in a second workshop, resulting in core intervention concepts and hand-drawn prototypes (stage 3). The outputs from stages 1-3 were translated into a design brief and specification (stage 4), which guided the building of a functioning prototype, Web-based intervention (stage 5). This prototype was de-risked resulting in an optimized functioning prototype (stage 6), which was subject to iterative testing and optimization (stage 7), prior to formal pilot evaluation. RESULTS: The evidence statements (stage 1) highlighted the effectiveness of physical activity, dietary and social role interventions in retirement; the idiosyncratic nature of retirement and well-being; the value of using specific behavior change techniques including those derived from the Health Action Process Approach; and the need for signposting to local resources. The intervention principles (stage 2) included the need to facilitate self-reflection on available resources, personalization, and promotion of links between key lifestyle behaviors. The core concepts and hand-drawn prototypes (stage 3) had embedded in them the importance of time use and work exit planning, personalized goal setting, and acceptance of a Web-based intervention. The design brief detailed the features and modules required (stage 4), guiding the development of wireframes, module content and functionality, virtual mentors, and intervention branding (stage 5). Following an iterative process of intervention testing and optimization (stage 6), the final Web-based intervention prototype of LEAP (Living, Eating, Activity, and Planning in retirement) was produced (stage 7). The approach was resource intensive and required a multidisciplinary team. The design expert made an invaluable contribution throughout the process. CONCLUSIONS: Our sequential approach fills an important methodological gap in the literature, describing the stages and techniques useful in developing an evidence-based complex health intervention. The systematic and rigorous integration of scientific evidence, expert knowledge and experience, and stakeholder input has resulted in an intervention likely to be acceptable and feasible.

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/jmir.5790

Cites

71 of 71 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: 3

  1. [50]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance (third edition) 2012 2016-07-14 https://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg4/resources/non-guidance-methods-for-the-development-of-nice-public-health-guidance-third-edition-pdf 27905711
  2. [53]Buchenau M Fulton S Experience prototyping 2000 Third Conference on designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques Aug. 17-19, 2000 Brooklyn, NY ACM
  3. [57]Keeley L Pikkel R Quinn B Walters H Ten types of innovationthe discipline of building breakthroughs 2013 New Jersey John Wiley & Sons Inc

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
O'Brien, N., Heaven, B., Teal, G., Evans, E. H., Cleland, C., Moffatt, S., Sniehotta, F. F., White, M., Mathers, J. C., & Moynihan, P.
Affiliations
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • Glasgow School of Art (GB)
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Moynihan, Paula
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2016-08-03
Volume
18
Issue
8
Pages
e210
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2497771230
Cited by
135
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
FWCI
1.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
  • RADAR (Glasgow School of Art) (acceptedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
  • Office of Research and Development
  • Wellcome Trust (087636/Z/08/Z)
  • United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration
  • Scottish Government
  • Cancer Research UK
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • British Heart Foundation
  • Public Health Agency
  • Centre for Diet and Activity Research
  • Directorate for Biological Sciences
  • Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K02325X/1, MR/K006312/1, G0900686, MR/K023187/1)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/G007462/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
retirement transition, online intervention, co-design, stakeholder engagement, evidence integration, expert knowledge, lifestyle intervention, physical activity, dietary behavior, social roles, behaviour change techniques, Health Action Process Approach, time use, personalized goal setting, virtual mentors, prototype development, older adults, well-being, de-risking, iterative testing
MeSH terms
Humans, Life Style, Retirement, Health Behavior, Knowledge, Internet, Qualitative Research

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