Establishing a Working Definition of User Experience for eHealth Interventions: A Scoping Review of Self-Reported User Experience Measures and Delphi Consultation with eHealth Researchers and Adolescents (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda S Newton ◽  
Sonja March ◽  
Nicole D Gehring ◽  
Arlen K Rowe ◽  
Ashley D Radomski
Keyword(s):  
User Experience ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Intervention Development ◽  
Health Condition ◽  
Working Definition ◽  
Perceived Impact ◽  
Behavioural Factors ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Ehealth Intervention

BACKGROUND Across eHealth intervention studies involving children, adolescents, and their parents, researchers have measured users’ experiences to assist with intervention development, refinement, and evaluation. To date, there are no widely agreed-on definitions or measures of ‘user experience’ to support a standardized approach for evaluation and comparison within or across interventions. OBJECTIVE We conducted a scoping review with subsequent Delphi consultation to (1) identify how user experience is defined and measured in eHealth research studies, (2) characterize the measurement tools used, and (3) establish working definitions for domains of user experience that could be used in future eHealth evaluations. METHODS We systematically searched electronic databases for published and gray literature available from January 1, 2005 to April 11, 2019. Studies assessing an eHealth intervention that targeted any health condition and was designed for use by children, adolescents, and their parents were eligible for inclusion. eHealth interventions needed to be web-, computer-, or mobile-based, mediated by the internet with some degree of interactivity. Studies were also required to report the measurement of ‘user experience’ as first-person experiences, involving cognitive and behavioural factors, reported by intervention users. Two reviewers independently screened studies for relevance and appraised the quality of user experience measures using published criteria: ‘well-established’, ‘approaching well-established’, ‘promising’, or ‘not yet established’. We conducted a descriptive analysis of how user experience was defined and measured in each study. Review findings subsequently informed the survey questions used in the Delphi consultations with eHealth researchers and adolescent users for how user experience should be defined and measured. RESULTS Of the 8,634 articles screened for eligibility, 129 and one erratum were included in the review. Thirty eHealth researchers and 27 adolescents participated in the Delphi consultations. Based on the literature and consultations, we proposed working definitions for six main user experience domains: acceptability, satisfaction, credibility, usability, user-reported adherence, and perceived impact. While most studies incorporated a study-specific measure, we identified ten well-established measures to quantify five of the six domains of user experience (all except for self-reported adherence). Our adolescent and researcher participants ranked perceived impact as one of the most important domains of user experience and usability as one of the least important domains. Rankings between adolescents and researchers diverged for other domains. CONCLUSIONS Findings highlight the various ways user experience has been defined and measured across studies and what aspects are most valued by researchers and adolescent users. We propose incorporating the working definitions and available measures of user experience to support consistent evaluation and reporting of outcomes across studies. Future studies can refine the definitions and measurement of user experience, explore how user experience relates to other eHealth outcomes, and inform the design and use of human-centred eHealth interventions.

scholarly journals How methodological frameworks are being developed: Evidence from a scoping review

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola McMeekin ◽  
Olivia Wu ◽  
Evi Germeni ◽  
A Briggs
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Methodological Framework ◽  
Data Synthesis ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Subject Areas ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Background A methodological framework is a structured guide to completing a process or procedure. Although the benefits of using methodological frameworks are increasingly recognised, to date, there is no formal definition of what constitutes a ‘methodological framework’, nor is there any published guidance on how to develop one. This study sought to: (a) map the existing landscape on the use of methodological frameworks; (b) identify approaches used for the development of methodological frameworks; and (c) recommend guidance for developing future methodological frameworks. We took a broad view and did not limit our study to methodological frameworks in research and academia. Methods A scoping review was conducted, drawing on Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework and more recent guidance. We systematically searched two major electronic databases (MEDLINE and Web of Science), as well as grey literature sources and the reference lists of key papers. Study characteristics and approaches used for development of methodological frameworks were extracted from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted. Results We included a total of 28 studies, representing a wide range of subject areas. The most commonly reported approach for developing a methodological framework was ‘Based on existing methods and guidelines’ (64.3%), followed by ‘Refined and validated’ (35.7%), ‘Experience and expertise’ (32.1%), ‘Literature review’ (28.6%), ‘Data synthesis and amalgamation’ (25.0%), ‘Data extraction’ (10.7%), ‘Iteratively developed’ (7.1%) and ‘Lab work results’ (3.6%). There was no consistent use of terminology; the studies included a range of terms for ‘methodological framework’, which were also used interchangeably within studies. Conclusions Although no formal guidance exists on how to develop a methodological framework, this scoping review found an overall consensus in approaches used, which can be broadly divided into three phases: (a) identifying data to inform the methodological framework; (b) developing the methodological framework; and (c) validating, testing and refining the methodological framework. Based on these phases, we provide recommendations to facilitate the development of future methodological frameworks.

scholarly journals A Scoping Review of Decolonization in Indigenous-Focused Health Education and Behavior Research

2021 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 306-319
Author(s):  
Subasri Narasimhan ◽  
P. Paul Chandanabhumma
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Education ◽  
Health Behavior ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Health Condition ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Behavior Health ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

Public health remains acutely affected by the historical legacy and ongoing processes of colonization. Although scholars have advocated for decolonization of public health systems, the principles and processes of decolonization have not been explicitly elaborated nor applied broadly within the field. To map these concepts, we conducted a scoping review of decolonization of the Indigenous-focused health behavior and education literature. Following the JBI (formerly Joanna Briggs Institute) scoping review framework, we conducted searches in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science using key search terms: “health education,” “health behavior,” “health promotion,” “health practice” AND “decolonization” or “decolonial.” We also conducted targeted searches of key journals to ensure review completeness. For selected articles, we examined the article content, focal population, country context and health condition(s). We assessed for the definition of decolonization (if provided), descriptions of decolonial processes used (if stated), and the application of the decolonial processes (e.g., for research, intervention, or critique, etc.). Characteristics of decolonial processes were grouped by those that were similarly described leading to the generation of common themes of reflection, action, and planning. Our review suggests that no clear norms exist in conceptualizing the definitions and processes of decolonization in the reviewed literature. A small proportion of the articles articulate decolonial processes in manners that are consistent, cohesive and attentive to the goals of decolonization. We believe that this review will encourage public health practitioners to consider meaningful approaches to challenging colonizing structures and engage with community partners to advance the visions of social justice and health equity.

scholarly journals Co-design of water services and infrastructure for Indigenous Canada: A scoping review

FACETS ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 487-511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori E.A. Bradford ◽  
Tim Vogel ◽  
Karl-Erich Lindenschmidt ◽  
Kerry McPhedran ◽  
Graham E.H. Strickert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Cultural Context ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Water Infrastructure ◽  
Traditional Values ◽  
Holistic Wellness ◽  
Working Definition ◽  
Indigenous Worldviews ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Community Infrastructure

There is movement in engineering fields and in Indigenous communities for enhancement of local participation in the design of community infrastructure. Inclusion of community priorities and unique cultural, spiritual, and traditional values harmonize the appearance, location, and functionality of developments with the social and cultural context in which they are built and contribute to holistic wellness. However, co-design processes that align community values and the technical needs of water facilities are difficult to find. A scoping review was conducted to explore the state of knowledge on co-design of water infrastructure in Indigenous Canada to build a knowledge base from which practices and processes could emerge. The scoping results revealed that articles and reports emerged only in recent years, contained case studies and meta-reviews with primary (qualitative) data, and involved community members in various capacities. Overall, 13 articles were reviewed that contributed to understanding co-design for water infrastructure in Indigenous Canada. Barriers to co-design included funding models for Indigenous community infrastructure, difficulties in engineers and designers understanding Indigenous worldviews and paradigms, and a lack of cooperation among stakeholders that contribute to ongoing design failures. A working definition of co-design for Indigenous water infrastructure is presented.

scholarly journals Dyadic Psychosocial eHealth Interventions: Systematic Scoping Review

10.2196/15509 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. e15509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly M Shaffer ◽  
Ashley Tigershtrom ◽  
Hoda Badr ◽  
Stephanie Benvengo ◽  
Marisol Hernandez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Intervention Development ◽  
Psychosocial Interventions ◽  
Care Recipient ◽  
Adult Care ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Care Recipients ◽  
Ehealth Intervention

Background Dyadic psychosocial interventions have been found beneficial both for people coping with mental or physical health conditions as well as their family members and friends who provide them with support. Delivering these interventions via electronic health (eHealth) may help increase their scalability. Objective This scoping review aimed to provide the first comprehensive overview of dyadic eHealth interventions for individuals of all ages affected by mental or physical illness and their family members or friends who support them. The goal was to understand how dyadic eHealth interventions have been used and to highlight areas of research needed to advance dyadic eHealth intervention development and dissemination. Methods A comprehensive electronic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO was conducted for articles published in the English language through March 2019. Eligible records described a psychosocial eHealth intervention that intervened with both care recipients and their support person. Results A total of 7113 records were reviewed of which 101 met eligibility criteria. There were 52 unique dyadic eHealth interventions identified, which were tested across 73 different trials. Of the unique interventions, 33 were conducted among dyads of children and their supporting parent, 1 was conducted with an adolescent-young adult care recipient population, and the remaining 18 were conducted among adult dyads. Interventions targeting pediatric dyads most commonly addressed a mental health condition (n=10); interventions targeting adult dyads most commonly addressed cancer (n=9). More than three-fourths of interventions (n=40) required some human support from research staff or clinicians. Most studies (n=64) specified one or more primary outcomes for care recipients, whereas less than one-fourth (n=22) specified primary outcomes for support persons. Where specified, primary outcomes were most commonly self-reported psychosocial or health factors for both care recipients (n=43) and support persons (n=18). Results of the dyadic eHealth intervention tended to be positive for care recipients, but evidence of effects for support persons was limited because of few studies specifying primary outcomes for supporters. Trials of dyadic eHealth interventions were most commonly randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n=44), and RCTs most commonly compared the dyadic eHealth intervention to usual care alone (n=22). Conclusions This first comprehensive review of dyadic eHealth interventions demonstrates that there is substantial, diverse, and growing literature supporting this interventional approach. However, several significant gaps were identified. Few studies were designed to evaluate the unique effects of dyadic interventions relative to individual interventions. There was also limited assessment and reporting of outcomes for support persons, and there were no interventions meeting our eligibility criteria specifically targeting the needs of older adult dyads. Findings highlight areas of research opportunities for developing dyadic eHealth interventions for novel populations and for increasing access to dyadic care.

scholarly journals How methodological frameworks are being developed: Evidence from a scoping review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola McMeekin ◽  
Olivia Wu ◽  
Evi Germeni ◽  
A Briggs
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Methodological Framework ◽  
Data Synthesis ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Subject Areas ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Background: A methodological framework is a structured guide to completing a process or procedure. Although the benefits of using methodological frameworks are increasingly recognised, to date, there is no formal definition of what constitutes a ‘methodological framework’, nor is there any published guidance on how to develop one. This study’s aims are to: (a) map the existing landscape on the use of methodological frameworks; (b) identify approaches used for the development of methodological frameworks and terminology used; and (c) provide suggestions for developing future methodological frameworks. We took a broad view and did not limit our study to methodological frameworks in research and academia.Methods: A scoping review was conducted, drawing on Arksey and O’Malley’s methods and more recent guidance. We systematically searched two major electronic databases (MEDLINE and Web of Science), as well as grey literature sources and the reference lists and citations of all relevant papers. Study characteristics and approaches used for development of methodological frameworks were extracted from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted.Results: We included a total of 30 studies, representing a wide range of subject areas. The most commonly reported approach for developing a methodological framework was ‘Based on existing methods and guidelines’ (66.7%), followed by ‘Refined and validated’ (33.3%), ‘Experience and expertise’ (30.0%), ‘Literature review’ (26.7%), ‘Data synthesis and amalgamation’ (23.3%), ‘Data extraction’ (10.0%), ‘Iteratively developed’ (6.7%) and ‘Lab work results’ (3.3%). There was no consistent use of terminology; the studies included a range of terms for ‘methodological framework’, which were also used interchangeably within studies.Conclusions: Although no formal guidance exists on how to develop a methodological framework, this scoping review found an overall consensus in approaches used, which can be broadly divided into three phases: (a) identifying data to inform the methodological framework; (b) developing the methodological framework; and (c) validating, testing and refining the methodological framework. Based on these phases, we provide suggestions to facilitate the development of future methodological frameworks.Trial registration: Not applicable

scholarly journals How methodological frameworks are being developed: Evidence from a scoping review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola McMeekin ◽  
Olivia Wu ◽  
Evi Germeni ◽  
A Briggs
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Methodological Framework ◽  
Data Synthesis ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Subject Areas ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Background Although the benefits of using methodological frameworks are increasingly recognised, to date, there is no formal definition of what constitutes a ‘methodological framework’, nor is there any published guidance on how to develop one. For the purposes of this study we have defined a methodological framework as a structured guide to completing a process or procedure. This study’s aims are to: (a) map the existing landscape on the use of methodological frameworks; (b) identify approaches used for the development of methodological frameworks and terminology used; and (c) provide suggestions for developing future methodological frameworks. We took a broad view and did not limit our study to methodological frameworks in research and academia. Methods A scoping review was conducted, drawing on Arksey and O’Malley’s methods and more recent guidance. We systematically searched two major electronic databases (MEDLINE and Web of Science), as well as grey literature sources and the reference lists and citations of all relevant papers. Study characteristics and approaches used for development of methodological frameworks were extracted from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted.Results We included a total of 30 studies, representing a wide range of subject areas. The most commonly reported approach for developing a methodological framework was ‘Based on existing methods and guidelines’ (66.7%), followed by ‘Refined and validated’ (33.3%), ‘Experience and expertise’ (30.0%), ‘Literature review’ (26.7%), ‘Data synthesis and amalgamation’ (23.3%), ‘Data extraction’ (10.0%), ‘Iteratively developed’ (6.7%) and ‘Lab work results’ (3.3%). There was no consistent use of terminology; diverse terms for methodological framework were used across and, interchangeably, within studies.Conclusions Although no formal guidance exists on how to develop a methodological framework, this scoping review found an overall consensus in approaches used, which can be broadly divided into three phases: (a) identifying data to inform the methodological framework; (b) developing the methodological framework; and (c) validating, testing and refining the methodological framework. Based on these phases, we provide suggestions to facilitate the development of future methodological frameworks.Trial registration: Not applicable

scholarly journals Dyadic Psychosocial eHealth Interventions: Systematic Scoping Review (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly M Shaffer ◽  
Ashley Tigershtrom ◽  
Hoda Badr ◽  
Stephanie Benvengo ◽  
Marisol Hernandez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Intervention Development ◽  
Psychosocial Interventions ◽  
Care Recipient ◽  
Adult Care ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Care Recipients ◽  
Ehealth Intervention

BACKGROUND Dyadic psychosocial interventions have been found beneficial both for people coping with mental or physical health conditions as well as their family members and friends who provide them with support. Delivering these interventions via electronic health (eHealth) may help increase their scalability. OBJECTIVE This scoping review aimed to provide the first comprehensive overview of dyadic eHealth interventions for individuals of all ages affected by mental or physical illness and their family members or friends who support them. The goal was to understand how dyadic eHealth interventions have been used and to highlight areas of research needed to advance dyadic eHealth intervention development and dissemination. METHODS A comprehensive electronic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO was conducted for articles published in the English language through March 2019. Eligible records described a psychosocial eHealth intervention that intervened with both care recipients and their support person. RESULTS A total of 7113 records were reviewed of which 101 met eligibility criteria. There were 52 unique dyadic eHealth interventions identified, which were tested across 73 different trials. Of the unique interventions, 33 were conducted among dyads of children and their supporting parent, 1 was conducted with an adolescent-young adult care recipient population, and the remaining 18 were conducted among adult dyads. Interventions targeting pediatric dyads most commonly addressed a mental health condition (n=10); interventions targeting adult dyads most commonly addressed cancer (n=9). More than three-fourths of interventions (n=40) required some human support from research staff or clinicians. Most studies (n=64) specified one or more primary outcomes for care recipients, whereas less than one-fourth (n=22) specified primary outcomes for support persons. Where specified, primary outcomes were most commonly self-reported psychosocial or health factors for both care recipients (n=43) and support persons (n=18). Results of the dyadic eHealth intervention tended to be positive for care recipients, but evidence of effects for support persons was limited because of few studies specifying primary outcomes for supporters. Trials of dyadic eHealth interventions were most commonly randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n=44), and RCTs most commonly compared the dyadic eHealth intervention to usual care alone (n=22). CONCLUSIONS This first comprehensive review of dyadic eHealth interventions demonstrates that there is substantial, diverse, and growing literature supporting this interventional approach. However, several significant gaps were identified. Few studies were designed to evaluate the unique effects of dyadic interventions relative to individual interventions. There was also limited assessment and reporting of outcomes for support persons, and there were no interventions meeting our eligibility criteria specifically targeting the needs of older adult dyads. Findings highlight areas of research opportunities for developing dyadic eHealth interventions for novel populations and for increasing access to dyadic care.

scholarly journals How methodological frameworks are being developed: Evidence from a scoping review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola McMeekin ◽  
Olivia Wu ◽  
Evi Germeni ◽  
Andrew Briggs
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Methodological Framework ◽  
Data Synthesis ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Subject Areas ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Background A methodological framework is a structured guide to completing a process or procedure. Although the benefits of using methodological frameworks are increasingly recognised, to date, there is no formal definition of what constitutes a ‘methodological framework’, nor is there any published guidance on how to develop one. This study’s aims are to: (a) map the existing landscape on the use of methodological frameworks; (b) identify approaches used for the development of methodological frameworks and terminology used; and (c) provide suggestions for developing future methodological frameworks. We took a broad view and did not limit our study to methodological frameworks in research and academia. Methods A scoping review was conducted, drawing on Arksey and O’Malley’s methods and more recent guidance. We systematically searched two major electronic databases (MEDLINE and Web of Science), as well as grey literature sources and the reference lists and citations of all relevant papers. Study characteristics and approaches used for development of methodological frameworks were extracted from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted. Results We included a total of 30 studies, representing a wide range of subject areas. The most commonly reported approach for developing a methodological framework was ‘Based on existing methods and guidelines’ (66.7%), followed by ‘Refined and validated’ (33.3%), ‘Experience and expertise’ (30.0%), ‘Literature review’ (26.7%), ‘Data synthesis and amalgamation’ (23.3%), ‘Data extraction’ (10.0%), ‘Iteratively developed’ (6.7%) and ‘Lab work results’ (3.3%). There was no consistent use of terminology; the studies included a range of terms for ‘methodological framework’, which were also used interchangeably within studies. Conclusions Although no formal guidance exists on how to develop a methodological framework, this scoping review found an overall consensus in approaches used, which can be broadly divided into three phases: (a) identifying data to inform the methodological framework; (b) developing the methodological framework; and (c) validating, testing and refining the methodological framework. Based on these phases, we provide suggestions to facilitate the development of future methodological frameworks.

A Working Definition of Mind

PsycCRITIQUES ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 58 (25) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Farr
Keyword(s):  
Working Definition ◽  
Definition Of
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document