Using Co-design in Mobile Health System Development: A Qualitative Study With Experts in Co-design and Mobile Health System Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The proliferation of mobile devices has enabled new ways of delivering health services through mobile health systems. Researchers and practitioners emphasize that the design of such systems is a complex endeavor with various pitfalls, including limited stakeholder involvement in design processes and the lack of integration into existing system landscapes. Co-design is an approach used to address these pitfalls. By recognizing users as experts of their own experience, co-design directly involves users in the design process and provides them an active role in knowledge development, idea generation, and concept development. OBJECTIVE: Despite the existence of a rich body of literature on co-design methodologies, limited research exists to guide the co-design of mobile health (mHealth) systems. This study aims to contextualize an existing co-design framework for mHealth applications and construct guidelines to address common challenges of co-designing mHealth systems. METHODS: Tapping into the knowledge and experience of experts in co-design and mHealth systems development, we conducted an exploratory qualitative study consisting of 16 semistructured interviews. Thereby, a constructivist ontological position was adopted while acknowledging the socially constructed nature of reality in mHealth system development. Purposive sampling across web-based platforms (eg, Google Scholar and ResearchGate) and publications by authors with co-design experience in mHealth were used to recruit co-design method experts (n=8) and mHealth system developers (n=8). Data were analyzed using thematic analysis along with our objectives of contextualizing the co-design framework and constructing guidelines for applying co-design to mHealth systems development. RESULTS: The contextualized framework captures important considerations of the mHealth context, including dedicated prototyping and implementation phases, and an emphasis on immersion in real-world contexts. In addition, 7 guidelines were constructed that directly pertain to mHealth: understanding stakeholder vulnerabilities and diversity, health behavior change, co-design facilitators, immersion in the mHealth ecosystem, postdesign advocates, health-specific evaluation criteria, and usage data and contextual research to understand impact. CONCLUSIONS: System designers encounter unique challenges when engaging in mHealth systems development. The contextualized co-design framework and constructed guidelines have the potential to serve as a shared frame of reference to guide the co-design of mHealth systems and facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration at the nexus of information technology and health research.
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 | 0.045 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".