Co-design of Digital Health Interventions for Young Adults: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Digital health interventions, including apps and web-based services, are on the rise due to their facilitated access to target groups. The constant evolution of technology calls for participatory research methodologies to understand youth expectations and the use of technology. The creative and collaborative nature of co-design allows for the active integration of youth desires and may enhance acceptability when it comes to digital health tools. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this review is to assess the breadth of literature on digital health interventions that have been co-designed for and by young adults, including the types of available evidence, the identification of key characteristics relevant to young adult co-design, and the examination of research conduct in this space. METHODS: The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Scoping Reviews. As well as the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist for reporting scoping reviews, an adaptation of Arksey and O'Malley's 6-stage framework for scoping reviews will be referenced. Peer-reviewed primary research, where young adults (aged 15-35 years) were actively involved in the design and development process of digital health interventions, will be collated for analyses. Five databases, including MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane, CINAHL Plus, Google Scholar, and Scopus, will be searched for relevant papers. Search strategies will be comprehensive to identify both published and unpublished literature. Relevant gray literature and secondary research will be excluded but pooled for separate analysis and citation chaining. Results will be presented in one or multiple forms, including narrative, tabular, or diagrammatic. RESULTS: Data collection commenced in October 2021. Following data extraction according to the JBI results extraction instrument and independent quality assurance of included studies, a narrative synthesis of each paper included in the final pool will allow for data charting. As of May 2022, 19 papers are included for analysis. We expect the results to be published by autumn 2022. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol provides guidance for researchers who plan to conduct a similar style of investigation and promotes standardization of the scoping review process. We anticipate the provision of an overview of participatory digital health research involving young adults, highlighting any gaps in this research area, as well as potential areas for further study. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/38635.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,019 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».