• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

成功协同设计的基础流程:来自一个数字健康项目的经验教训

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

作者信息

Burns Catherine, Kilkenny Monique F, Purvis Tara, Gall Seana L, Farmer Christine, Barker Seamus, Booth Brenda, Bray Janet E, Cadilhac Dominique A, Cameron Jan, Dalli Lachlan L, Ho Stephanie, Horton Eleanor, Kleinig Timothy, Murphy Lisa, Nelson Mark R, Olaiya Muideen T, Thrift Amanda G, Freak-Poli Rosanne

机构信息

Stroke and Ageing Research, Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.

Stroke Theme, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Australia.

出版信息

Health Expect. 2025 Jun;28(3):e70272. doi: 10.1111/hex.70272.

DOI:10.1111/hex.70272
PMID:40405447
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12098295/
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 χ/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.

摘要

背景

协同设计有助于使研究与最终用户需求保持一致,但目前尚无统一的方法来报告协同设计方法和评估情况。我们分享了在为爱脑(Love Your Brain)数字中风预防平台进行协同设计过程中的经验。我们评估了指导我们协同设计方法的核心属性,包括招募、焦点小组协调、参与者参与度和满意度。

方法

从2023年5月至2024年3月,每两周组织一次在线协同设计焦点小组,分为两个群体(健康知识专家和社区成员;每个群体进行8次会议),以设计爱脑平台的内容和结构。在澳大利亚,采用滚雪球法和目的抽样法招募参与者。协调工作包括记录研究团队进行一轮焦点小组所需的时间。通过焦点小组出席情况和调查反馈来衡量参与者的参与度,并使用描述性统计和主题分析进行分析。焦点小组期间口头和/或书面贡献的数量和长度用描述性统计进行总结,作为参与度的衡量指标,使用χ²/威尔科克森秩和检验评估不同群体之间的差异。通过调查回复和在最终评估焦点小组中的意见来评估参与者的满意度。

结果

16名健康知识专家(临床医生/研究人员)和28名社区成员表示有兴趣,其中10名健康知识专家和12名社区成员(包括9名有中风亲身经历的人)参与其中。进行两个相同的焦点小组需要项目经理/协调员29小时、主持人8 - 11小时以及首席研究员6.5 - 8.5小时。大多数参与者(86%)参加了≥5/8次焦点小组。通过预读材料、结构化/组织良好的焦点小组以及经验丰富的主持人提高了参与度。所有参与者在每个焦点小组中都有贡献,只是投入程度不同。健康知识专家更喜欢书面贡献而非口头贡献,并且与社区成员相比,他们写的信息更长。社区成员发言的时间比健康知识专家长。参与者满意度很高,他们表示研究团队“一直重视我们的意见”。特别强调了最终评估焦点小组的重要性,参与者表示他们的贡献被纳入了最终产品。

结论

我们的研究强调了协调、参与者参与度和满意度之间的关系,以及在数字健康项目成功进行协同设计时考虑资源需求的重要性。

患者或公众贡献

有亲身经历的人,包括中风患者的护理人员以及公众,参与了协同设计焦点小组。爱脑管理委员会包括有中风亲身经历的人,他们参与了本研究的监督和本稿件的撰写。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cff8/12098295/ba01bbac6d61/HEX-28-e70272-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cff8/12098295/47e565d69fb3/HEX-28-e70272-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cff8/12098295/cb151093e400/HEX-28-e70272-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cff8/12098295/ba01bbac6d61/HEX-28-e70272-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cff8/12098295/47e565d69fb3/HEX-28-e70272-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cff8/12098295/cb151093e400/HEX-28-e70272-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cff8/12098295/ba01bbac6d61/HEX-28-e70272-g001.jpg

相似文献

1
Processes Underpinning Successful Co-Design: Lessons From a Digital Health Project.成功协同设计的基础流程:来自一个数字健康项目的经验教训
Health Expect. 2025 Jun;28(3):e70272. doi: 10.1111/hex.70272.
2
Co-Designing a Digital Stroke Prevention Platform: Leveraging Lived Experience and Expert Advice.共同设计一个数字中风预防平台:利用实际经验和专家建议。
Health Expect. 2025 Jun;28(3):e70293. doi: 10.1111/hex.70293.
3
Qualitative Study定性研究
4
Multicomponent Support Program for Secondary Prevention of Stroke Using Digital Health Technology: Co-Design Study With People Living With Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.多组分支持计划用于使用数字健康技术对中风进行二级预防:与中风或短暂性脑缺血发作患者共同设计研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2024 Aug 22;26:e54604. doi: 10.2196/54604.
5
Co-Designed Online Training Program for Worry Management: The Role of Young People With Lived Experience of Worry in Program Development.共同设计的担忧管理在线培训项目:有担忧生活经历的年轻人在项目开发中的作用。
JMIR Form Res. 2025 May 21;9:e66461. doi: 10.2196/66461.
6
Reporting on a Partnership to Co-Design a Digital Health Intervention With Young People Who Have Experienced Technology-Assisted Sexual Abuse.关于与经历过技术辅助性虐待的年轻人共同设计数字健康干预措施的合作报告。
Health Expect. 2025 Jun;28(3):e70288. doi: 10.1111/hex.70288.
7
Mixed methods evaluation to explore participant experiences of a pilot randomized trial to facilitate self-management of people living with stroke: Inspiring virtual enabled resources following vascular events (iVERVE).混合方法评估,探索参与一项试点随机试验以促进中风患者自我管理的体验:血管事件后激发虚拟启用资源(iVERVE)。
Health Expect. 2022 Oct;25(5):2570-2581. doi: 10.1111/hex.13584. Epub 2022 Aug 23.
8
Investigating the Best Practices for Engagement in Remote Participatory Design: Mixed Methods Analysis of 4 Remote Studies With Family Caregivers.探究远程参与式设计中的最佳实践:对四项与家庭照顾者开展的远程研究的混合方法分析
J Med Internet Res. 2024 Dec 3;26:e60353. doi: 10.2196/60353.
9
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
10
Knowledge Families Hold: Co-Production and Co-Research With Mental Health Family Carers in Understanding Experiences During the COVID-19 Pandemic.知识家族的持有:在理解 COVID-19 大流行期间的经验方面,与心理健康家庭照顾者共同生产和共同研究。
Health Expect. 2024 Dec;27(6):e70093. doi: 10.1111/hex.70093.

引用本文的文献

1
Evaluation of a digital health platform for preventing stroke in the Australian community: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial - Love Your Brain.澳大利亚社区预防中风数字健康平台的评估:一项随机对照试验——关爱你的大脑的研究方案
PLoS One. 2025 Sep 4;20(9):e0330868. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0330868. eCollection 2025.
2
Co-Designing a Digital Stroke Prevention Platform: Leveraging Lived Experience and Expert Advice.共同设计一个数字中风预防平台:利用实际经验和专家建议。
Health Expect. 2025 Jun;28(3):e70293. doi: 10.1111/hex.70293.

本文引用的文献

1
Co-Designing a Digital Stroke Prevention Platform: Leveraging Lived Experience and Expert Advice.共同设计一个数字中风预防平台:利用实际经验和专家建议。
Health Expect. 2025 Jun;28(3):e70293. doi: 10.1111/hex.70293.
2
Evaluation of research co-design in health: a systematic overview of reviews and development of a framework.健康领域研究共同设计的评价:系统综述概述与框架的制定。
Implement Sci. 2024 Sep 11;19(1):63. doi: 10.1186/s13012-024-01394-4.
3
Primary care involvement in clinical research - prerequisites, motivators, and barriers: results from a study series.
基层医疗参与临床研究的前提条件、动机和障碍:一系列研究的结果
Arch Public Health. 2024 Mar 20;82(1):41. doi: 10.1186/s13690-024-01272-x.
4
Codesigning implementation strategies to improve evidence-based stroke rehabilitation: A feasibility study.共同设计实施策略以改进基于证据的中风康复:一项可行性研究。
Health Expect. 2024 Feb;27(1):e13904. doi: 10.1111/hex.13904. Epub 2023 Nov 21.
5
Development of the Preferred Components for Co-Design in Research Guideline and Checklist: Protocol for a Scoping Review and a Modified Delphi Process.研究指南与清单中协同设计首选组件的开发:一项范围综述及改良德尔菲法流程的方案
JMIR Res Protoc. 2023 Oct 30;12:e50463. doi: 10.2196/50463.
6
Barriers to and Facilitators of Digital Health Among Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations: Qualitative Systematic Review.文化和语言多样化人群中数字健康的障碍和促进因素:定性系统评价。
J Med Internet Res. 2023 Feb 28;25:e42719. doi: 10.2196/42719.
7
Practices to support co-design processes: A case-study of co-designing a program for children with parents with a mental health problem in the Austrian region of Tyrol.支持协同设计过程的实践:奥地利蒂罗尔地区为有心理健康问题父母的儿童共同设计一个项目的案例研究。
Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2023 Feb;32(1):223-235. doi: 10.1111/inm.13078. Epub 2022 Oct 13.
8
Pushing boundaries of co-design by going online: Lessons learned and reflections from three perspectives.通过线上方式拓展协同设计的边界:从三个视角获得的经验教训与思考
Int J Child Comput Interact. 2022 Sep;33:100476. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100476. Epub 2022 Mar 4.
9
Challenges in the development of digital public health interventions and mapped solutions: Findings from a scoping review.数字公共卫生干预措施开发中的挑战及已梳理的解决方案:一项范围综述的结果
Digit Health. 2022 May 26;8:20552076221102255. doi: 10.1177/20552076221102255. eCollection 2022 Jan-Dec.
10
Conducting Virtual Focus Groups During the COVID-19 Epidemic Utilizing Videoconferencing Technology: A Feasibility Study.在新冠疫情期间利用视频会议技术开展虚拟焦点小组:一项可行性研究
Cureus. 2022 Mar 27;14(3):e23540. doi: 10.7759/cureus.23540. eCollection 2022 Mar.