Cocreation to Facilitate Communication and Collaboration Between Multidisciplinary Stakeholders in eHealth Research and Development: Case Study of the CARRIER (Coronary Artery Disease: Risk Estimations and Interventions for Prevention and Early Detection) Consortium
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Collaboration with diverse stakeholders in eHealth research is fundamental yet complex. Stakeholders from various disciplines do not "speak the same language" and have different levels of power and interest, resulting in contrasting objectives, priorities, and expectations. An approach to constructive communication and collaboration is necessary to overcome this complex dynamic. Cocreation, known in the field of eHealth most often to involve end users, may also be suitable for facilitating stakeholder engagement and alignment. OBJECTIVE: This paper provides insights into the application of cocreation, specifically in the early phases of research that focus on involving and aligning relevant stakeholders from different academic and professional backgrounds. METHODS: The case for this study was a group discussion with members of a multidisciplinary consortium that works on developing a personalized eHealth intervention for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Using stakeholder mapping, health and medicine experts, big data scientists, software developers, and an innovation manager (N=8) were invited to participate. The discussion was based on a user scenario and structured according to the Six Thinking Hats of de Bono, representing 6 different types of thinking. The discussion was recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically with the use of ATLAS.ti software. RESULTS: First, informative and intuitive thinking served the preparatory purpose of familiarization with the project details and other participants. Second, positive and critical thinking constituted the body of the discussion and resulted in an in-depth conversation. Third, creative and organizational thinking were action oriented and focused on solutions and planning to safeguard future progress. The participants repeatedly reflected on various intervention-related themes, ranging from intervention content to technical functionalities and from legal requirements to implementation in practice. Moreover, project-related matters were discussed, including stakeholder management and time and budget constraints. CONCLUSIONS: This paper demonstrates how cocreation can be of value for multidisciplinary stakeholder engagement and alignment. Based on stakeholder mapping (with whom to discuss), a dream user scenario (what to discuss), and the Six Thinking Hats of de Bono (how to discuss), the participants shared information, discussed differences, searched for solutions, and moved toward a collective approach regarding intervention development. The lessons learned may further improve the understanding of how cocreation can contribute to multidisciplinary collaboration.
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 ».