Suppr超能文献

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.

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/cff8/12098295/47e565d69fb3/HEX-28-e70272-g002.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验