Processes Underpinning Successful Co-Design: Lessons From a Digital Health Project

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Catherine Burns, Monique F. Kilkenny, Tara Purvis, Seana L. Gall, Christine Farmer, Seamus Barker, Brenda Booth, Janet E. Bray, Dominique A. Cadilhac, Jan Cameron, Lachlan L. Dalli, Stephanie Ho, Eleanor Horton, Timothy Kleinig, Lisa Murphy, Mark R. Nelson, Muideen T. Olaiya, Amanda G. Thrift, Rosanne Freak-Poli
{"title":"Processes Underpinning Successful Co-Design: Lessons From a Digital Health Project","authors":"Catherine Burns,&nbsp;Monique F. Kilkenny,&nbsp;Tara Purvis,&nbsp;Seana L. Gall,&nbsp;Christine Farmer,&nbsp;Seamus Barker,&nbsp;Brenda Booth,&nbsp;Janet E. Bray,&nbsp;Dominique A. Cadilhac,&nbsp;Jan Cameron,&nbsp;Lachlan L. Dalli,&nbsp;Stephanie Ho,&nbsp;Eleanor Horton,&nbsp;Timothy Kleinig,&nbsp;Lisa Murphy,&nbsp;Mark R. Nelson,&nbsp;Muideen T. Olaiya,&nbsp;Amanda G. Thrift,&nbsp;Rosanne Freak-Poli","doi":"10.1111/hex.70272","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Co-design helps to align research with end-user needs, but there is no consistent method for reporting co-design methodology and evaluation. We share our experiences co-designing the Love Your Brain digital platform for stroke prevention. We evaluated the core attributes that guided our co-design approach, including recruitment, focus group coordination, participant engagement and satisfaction.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Online co-design focus groups were conducted fortnightly (May 2023 to March 2024) with two cohorts (health knowledge experts and community members; <i>n</i> = 8 sessions per cohort) to design the content and structure of Love Your Brain. Snowballing methods and purposive sampling were used to recruit participants in Australia. Coordination involved tracking the time spent by the research team for one round of focus groups. Participant engagement was measured through focus group attendance and survey feedback and analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Count and length of verbal and/or written contributions during focus groups were summarised with descriptive statistics as a measure of engagement, with differences between cohorts assessed using <i>χ</i><sup>2</sup>/Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Participant satisfaction was evaluated using survey responses and input at a final evaluative focus group.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Sixteen health knowledge experts (clinicians/researchers) and 28 community members expressed interest, of which 10 health knowledge experts and 12 community members (including 9 people with lived experience of stroke) participated. Conducting two identical focus groups required 29 h of project manager/coordinator time, 8–11 h for facilitators and 6.5–8.5 h for chief investigators. Most participants (86%) attended ≥ 5/8 focus groups. Engagement was enhanced through pre-reading material, structured/well-organised focus groups and experienced facilitators. All participants contributed at each focus group, with varying levels of input. Health knowledge experts preferred written contributions over verbal contributions and wrote longer messages compared to community members. Community members spoke for a longer duration than health knowledge experts. Participant satisfaction was high, with participants reporting that the research team ‘always valued our opinions’. Importance was placed on a final evaluative focus group, and participants stated that their contributions were incorporated into the final product.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Our research emphasises relationships between coordination, participant engagement and satisfaction and the importance of considering resourcing requirements for successful co-design of digital health projects.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>People with lived experience, including caregivers of people with stroke, and members of the public, participated in the co-design focus groups. The Love Your Brain Management Committee includes people with lived experience of stroke who contributed to the oversight of this study and the preparation of this manuscript.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"28 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70272","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70272","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Co-design helps to align research with end-user needs, but there is no consistent method for reporting co-design methodology and evaluation. We share our experiences co-designing the Love Your Brain digital platform for stroke prevention. We evaluated the core attributes that guided our co-design approach, including recruitment, focus group coordination, participant engagement and satisfaction.

Methods

Online co-design focus groups were conducted fortnightly (May 2023 to March 2024) with two cohorts (health knowledge experts and community members; n = 8 sessions per cohort) to design the content and structure of Love Your Brain. Snowballing methods and purposive sampling were used to recruit participants in Australia. Coordination involved tracking the time spent by the research team for one round of focus groups. Participant engagement was measured through focus group attendance and survey feedback and analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Count and length of verbal and/or written contributions during focus groups were summarised with descriptive statistics as a measure of engagement, with differences between cohorts assessed using χ2/Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Participant satisfaction was evaluated using survey responses and input at a final evaluative focus group.

Results

Sixteen health knowledge experts (clinicians/researchers) and 28 community members expressed interest, of which 10 health knowledge experts and 12 community members (including 9 people with lived experience of stroke) participated. Conducting two identical focus groups required 29 h of project manager/coordinator time, 8–11 h for facilitators and 6.5–8.5 h for chief investigators. Most participants (86%) attended ≥ 5/8 focus groups. Engagement was enhanced through pre-reading material, structured/well-organised focus groups and experienced facilitators. All participants contributed at each focus group, with varying levels of input. Health knowledge experts preferred written contributions over verbal contributions and wrote longer messages compared to community members. Community members spoke for a longer duration than health knowledge experts. Participant satisfaction was high, with participants reporting that the research team ‘always valued our opinions’. Importance was placed on a final evaluative focus group, and participants stated that their contributions were incorporated into the final product.

Conclusion

Our research emphasises relationships between coordination, participant engagement and satisfaction and the importance of considering resourcing requirements for successful co-design of digital health projects.

Patient or Public Contribution

People with lived experience, including caregivers of people with stroke, and members of the public, participated in the co-design focus groups. The Love Your Brain Management Committee includes people with lived experience of stroke who contributed to the oversight of this study and the preparation of this manuscript.

Abstract Image

支持成功协同设计的过程:来自数字健康项目的经验教训
协同设计有助于使研究与最终用户需求保持一致,但没有一致的方法来报告协同设计方法和评估。我们分享共同设计“爱你的大脑”中风预防数字平台的经验。我们评估了指导我们共同设计方法的核心属性,包括招聘、焦点小组协调、参与者参与度和满意度。方法每两周(2023年5月至2024年3月)进行在线共同设计焦点小组,包括两个队列(健康知识专家和社区成员;n =每个队列8次)来设计“爱你的大脑”的内容和结构。采用滚雪球法和有目的抽样法在澳大利亚招募参与者。协调包括跟踪研究小组在一轮焦点小组中所花费的时间。通过焦点小组出席率和调查反馈来衡量参与者的参与度,并使用描述性统计和专题分析进行分析。使用描述性统计汇总焦点小组期间口头和/或书面贡献的数量和长度,作为参与度的衡量标准,并使用χ2/Wilcoxon秩和检验评估队列之间的差异。参与者满意度评估使用调查回应和输入在最终评估焦点小组。结果16名健康知识专家(临床医生/研究人员)和28名社区成员表达了兴趣,其中10名健康知识专家和12名社区成员(包括9名卒中生活经验者)参与。进行两个相同的焦点小组需要项目经理/协调员29小时的时间,主持人8-11小时的时间,首席调查员6.5-8.5小时的时间。大多数参与者(86%)参加了≥5/8个焦点小组。通过预读材料、结构化/组织良好的焦点小组和经验丰富的主持人,提高了学生的参与度。所有参与者在每个焦点小组中都有不同程度的贡献。与社区成员相比,健康知识专家更喜欢书面贡献而不是口头贡献,并且写的信息更长。社区成员的发言时间比卫生知识专家的发言时间长。参与者的满意度很高,参与者报告说,研究团队“总是重视我们的意见”。最后的评价焦点小组得到了重视,与会者表示他们的贡献已纳入最终产品。我们的研究强调了协调、参与者参与和满意度之间的关系,以及考虑资源需求对成功的数字健康项目协同设计的重要性。患者或公众贡献有生活经验的人,包括中风患者的照顾者和公众成员,参加了共同设计的焦点小组。爱你的大脑管理委员会包括有中风生活经验的人,他们为本研究的监督和本手稿的准备做出了贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信