Co-Develop-IT - Co-design, Development, and Evaluation of Individually Tailored Technology-Enhanced Training and Rehabilitation Concepts: Methodological Guideline Development Study
Manser, P.; Hardeman, L. E. S.; Wallin, A.; Conradsson, D. M.; Leavy, B.; Albrecht, F.; Roerdink, M.; Temprado, J.-J.; de Bruin, E. D.; Franzen, E.
Show abstract
INTRODUCTIONApplying digital health technologies (DHTs) for health promotion and disease prevention is recommended by official bodies such as the World Health Organization. User-centered co-design with patient and public involvement is considered best practice for developing such complex interventions. While well-established frameworks are available to broadly guide such procedures, there is a need to better focus and guide the co-design process with preceding contextual research. Moreover, more specific guidance on additional methodological steps for the validation of DHT components and to facilitate their implementation, scalability, and sustainability would benefit the research community. OBJECTIVESThis manuscript presents a consensus-based methodological guideline that delineates best practices for each step along the full lifecycle of DHT-enhanced training and rehabilitation concepts - from contextualization through co-development and evaluation to implementation. METHODSThe Co-Develop-IT guideline was co-created through an expert consensus process. It consisted of biweekly 90-minute meetings between August 2024 and February 2025 in combination with written elaboration, feedback, and revisions between meetings, to gradually develop a consensus on best practice recommendations. RESULTSThe Co-Develop-IT guideline consists of eight iterative phases directed toward multidisciplinary expert teams coordinating projects on DHT-enhanced training and rehabilitation concepts. It is applicable to any type(s) of end-user(s), exercise type(s), intended context(s) of use (e.g., primary healthcare, community health services, telemedicine) and overarching goal(s) (e.g., health promotion, primary through tertiary disease prevention). The guideline integrates and refines previous methodological frameworks and expands on existing best practices by introducing five distinct preparatory contextual research phases preceding generative co-design and development. These novel phases are dedicated to harmonizing all contributors interests and clarifying their level of involvement (particularly between research, industry, healthcare, and end-users), aligning co-design procedures with expectations and requirements of interest-holders, collaboratively delineating clear strategies to monitor project progression, and promoting implementation, scalability, and sustainability of the solutions to be co-developed. CONCLUSIONThe Co-Develop-IT guideline proposes best practices for how participatory research and patient and public involvement may be efficiently implemented and structured to benefit the establishment of individually tailored DHT-enhanced training concepts. Its main novelty lies in guiding the structured establishment of a more robust conceptual foundation through extensive preparatory contextual research phases, aimed at better targeting tailored co-development efforts toward successful implementation. We advocate for the continued refinement and consolidation of this methodological guideline to help the field strike a better balance between maximizing the benefits and mitigating the increased resource demands of collaborative research practices - ultimately maximizing its real-world impact.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Using a design-based research approach to develop a technology-supported physical education course to increase the physical activity levels of university students: Study protocol paper 96%
- Evaluating user experience with immersive technology in simulation-based education: a modified Delphi study with qualitative analysis 95%
- Development of the AD F ICE_IT clinical decision support system to assist deprescribing of fall-risk increasing drugs: A user-centered design approach 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Protocol for a scoping review of the impact of digital assistive technologies on the quality of life for people with dementia 94%
- Face-to-face interventions to encourage enrolment in cardiac rehabilitation; a scoping review protocol 94%
- Synthesizing evidence regarding community-based volunteer facilitated programs supporting integrated care transitions from hospital to home: A scoping review protocol 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Scientific hypothesis generation process in clinical research: a secondary data analytic tool versus experience study protocol 95%
- Strategies and Tools for electronic health records and physician workflow alignment: A scoping review protocol 94%
- Wearables and smartphones for modifiable risk factors in metabolic health: a scoping review protocol 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- The NASSS (Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability) framework use over time: A scoping review 96%
- Defining Destigmatizing Design Guidelines for Use in Sexual Health-Related Digital Technologies: A Delphi Study 95%
- Development and preliminary testing of Health Equity Across the AI Lifecycle (HEAAL): A framework for healthcare delivery organizations to mitigate the risk of AI solutions worsening health inequities 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Validating a Clinical Decision Support System for Palliative Care using healthcare professionals’ insights 94%
- A digital self-care intervention for Ugandan patients with heart failure and their clinicians: User-centred design and usability study 94%
- How suitable are clinical vignettes for the evaluation of symptom checker apps? A test theoretical perspective 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.