PreprintCited by 67Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsUsability and User Interface DesignInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Methods for Human-Centered eHealth Development: Narrative Scoping Review (Preprint)

Open access
Kip, Hanneke, Keizer, Julia, da Silva, Marcia C, Beerlage-de Jong, Nienke, Köhle, Nadine, Kelders, Saskia M·2021·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Preprint — published as 10.2196/31858 · Paper page

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Thorough holistic development of eHealth can contribute to a good fit among the technology, its users, and the context. However, despite the availability of frameworks, not much is known about specific research activities for different aims, phases, and settings. This results in researchers having to reinvent the wheel. Consequently, there is a need to synthesize existing knowledge on research activities for participatory eHealth development processes. OBJECTIVE: The 3 main goals of this review are to create an overview of the development strategies used in studies based on the CeHRes (Center for eHealth Research) Roadmap, create an overview of the goals for which these methods can be used, and provide insight into the lessons learned about these methods. METHODS: We included eHealth development studies that were based on the phases and/or principles of the CeHRes Roadmap. This framework was selected because of its focus on participatory, iterative eHealth design in context and to limit the scope of this review. Data were extracted about the type of strategy used, rationale for using the strategy, research questions, and reported information on lessons learned. The most frequently mentioned lessons learned were summarized using a narrative, inductive approach. RESULTS: In the included 160 papers, a distinction was made between overarching development methods (n=10) and products (n=7). Methods are used to gather new data, whereas products can be used to synthesize previously collected data and support the collection of new data. The identified methods were focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, usability tests, literature studies, desk research, log data analyses, card sorting, Delphi studies, and experience sampling. The identified products were prototypes, requirements, stakeholder maps, values, behavior change strategies, personas, and business models. Examples of how these methods and products were applied in the development process and information about lessons learned were provided. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that there is a plethora of methods and products that can be used at different points in the development process and in different settings. To do justice to the complexity of eHealth development, it seems that multiple strategies should be combined. In addition, we found no evidence for an optimal single step-by-step approach to develop eHealth. Rather, researchers need to select the most suitable research methods for their research objectives, the context in which data are collected, and the characteristics of the participants. This study serves as a first step toward creating a toolkit to support researchers in applying the CeHRes Roadmap to practice. In this way, they can shape the most suitable and efficient eHealth development process.

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/preprints.31858

Cites

187 of 187 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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kip, H., Keizer, J., da Silva, M. C., Beerlage-de Jong, N., Köhle, N., & Kelders, S. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Twente (NL)
  • North-West University (ZA)
Corresponding author
Kip, Hanneke
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2021-07-07
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
e31858-e31858
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3213720648
Cited by
67
References
187
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 2
FWCI
2.48
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)
  • University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
participatory design, human-centered design, iterative design, development methods, lessons learned, stakeholder engagement, personas, behavior change strategies, business models, prototype development, usability testing, stakeholder mapping
MeSH terms
Behavior Therapy, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, Focus Groups, Telemedicine

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