Participatory Design of an Online Self-Management Tool for Users With Spinal Cord Injury: Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rehospitalization rates resulting from secondary conditions in persons with spinal cord injuries (SCI) are high. Self-management programs for many chronic conditions have been associated with decreases in hospital readmissions. However, in the SCI community, evidence suggests that satisfaction with traditional self-management programs is low. Users with SCI have indicated preference for programs that are online (rather than in-person), that target SCI-specific concerns, and are led by peers with SCI. There is currently no program with all of these features, which addresses self-management of secondary conditions after SCI. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide details of a participatory design (PD) process for an internet-mediated self-management program for users with SCI (called SCI & U) and illustrate how it has been used to define design constraints and solutions. METHODS: Users were involved in development as codesigners, codevelopers, and key informants. Codesigners and codevelopers were recruited from consumer advocacy groups and worked with a core development team. Key informants were recruited from geographically distributed advocacy groups to form a product advisory council that met regularly with the core team. During meetings, codesigners and informants walked through stages of work that typify PD processes such as exploration, discovery, and prototyping. This paper details the process by analyzing 10 meetings that took place between August 2015 and May 2016. Meetings were recorded, transcribed, and subjected to an inductive thematic analysis; resulting themes were organized according to their relationship to PD stages. RESULTS: A total of 16 individuals participated in meeting discussions, including 7 researchers and 9 persons with SCI from 4 Canadian provinces. Themes of trust, expertise, and community emerged in every group discussion. The exploration stage revealed interest in online self-management resources coupled with concerns about information credibility. In general, participants indicated that they felt more confident with information received from trusted, in-person sources (eg, peers or health care professionals) than information found online. The discovery stage saw participants propose and discuss concepts to filter credible information and highlight community expertise, namely (1) a community-curated resource database, (2) online information navigators, and (3) group chats with peers. Several tools and techniques were collectively prototyped in an effort to foster trust and community; these are illustrated in the Results section. CONCLUSIONS: A PD process engaging users as codesigners, codevelopers, and informants can be used to identify design concerns and prototype online solutions to promote self-management after SCI. Future work will assess the usability of the collectively designed tools among a broad population of Canadians with SCI and the tools' impact on self-efficacy and health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".