Designing an eHealth Breastfeeding Resource With Young Mothers Using a Participatory Design

Abstract

Introduction Breastfeeding rates among young mothers are low and do not meet recommendations from health authorities, putting the health of young mothers and their infants at risk. Young mothers require breastfeeding support that meets their learning needs and preferred mode for accessing information. The objective of this study was to work collaboratively with young mothers in order to cocreate an eHealth breastfeeding resource. Methodology A three-phase exploratory study was conducted in Ontario, Canada. In Phases I and II, young mothers and health care providers (HCPs) were recruited and preferences for an eHealth breastfeeding resource were explored. In Phase III, feedback from young mothers and HCPs about the new resource was collected. Results Participants found the breastfeeding eHealth resource visually appealing, engaging, and informative. Discussion Cocreating a tailored breastfeeding eHealth resource with young mothers and HCPs using a participatory approach ensured that the resource design and content met the learning needs of young mothers.

Citizen involvement in research on technological innovations for health, care or well-being: a scoping review

“…From the 83 included records, eight were published in 2016, 14 in 2017, 15 in 2018, 17 in 2019, and 29 in 2020. Most studies were conducted in the United States (N=17) [44, 46–48, 52, 54, 71, 72, 76, 89, 94, 98, 100, 104, 107, 119, 123], followed by Canada (N=14) [42, 43, 45, 59, 65, 69, 70, 81, 86–88, 92, 95, 105], the United Kingdom (N=12) [51, 56, 57, 67, 80, 90, 96, 102, 103, 111–113], Denmark (N=6) [77, 78, 85, 106, 114, 120], and Australia (N=6) [83, 91, 108, 110, 116, 118]. Five studies were conducted in multiple countries [53, 97, 99, 109, 121], three studies were conducted in Sweden [Erlingdottir et al 2019; Gardsten 2017; Wikman et al 2018], and Norway [74, 75, 115], and two in Austria [61, 66], the Netherlands [34, 68], and Ireland [79, 117].…”

“…Participatory design was most prominent (N=24) [42, 44, 45, 50, 57, 61, 63, 66, 69, 74, 75, 77, 78, 80, 82, 83, 85, 91, 100, 104, 106, 117, 119, 123], followed by co-design (N=16) [55, 64, 65, 72, 76, 81, 86, 88, 96, 99, 101, 103, 105, 110, 113, 121]. Other often used terms were community based participatory research (N=9) [48, 52–54, 56, 70, 71, 93, 94], co-creation (N=8) [43, 46, 58, 62, 73, 97, 107, 120], public and patient involvement (N=7) [67, 79, 90, 102, 109, 111, 114], participatory action research (N=5) [59, 68, 108, 112, 122], and user centered design (N=4) [34, 89, 92, 115]. Citizen science was only used in two records [49, 118], and usability study [47], co-production [51], human centered participatory design [84], social Justice design [87], symposium [95], community oriented approach [98], and participation in research [116] were all only used once to describe the research design.…”

“…These include key informants [45], co-leadership [46, 81], co-designers [45, 65, 86, 89], co-researchers [51], co-creators [58, 73], co-facilitators [102], co-investigators [109], inventors [123], design/research partners [117, 122], citizen scientist [118], community advisory committee [98], research coalition [105], steering group [71, 90, 112], (expert) advisory group [51, 108, 113, 116], and development group/team [34, 59, 74, 120]. Fifty-nine of 83 records included adults, 11 records included younger adults (13 to 25 years old) [43, 51, 58, 59, 67, 78, 94, 98, 99, 119, 120], eight records included children (12 years or younger) [61, 69, 70, 72, 104, 117, 121, 123], and nine records included older adults [59, 68, 73, 83, 84, 89, 91, 97, 118]. The number of involved citizens is variable among all records, most studies involved between 30 and 40 citizens, with a highest amount of 6246 [49] and the lowest of five citizens [76, 82, 84, 114].…”

“…The term citizen science was only used in two records and participatory design was most prominent in the included records. Identical authors give different terms to their research design across studies [42, 43, 46, 47, 86, 87], and when using similar terms, the authors base the research method on different sources [86, 88]. Inclusion of all the different research methods is due to our broad search string, however, this is in line with continuing discussions on the definition for citizen science [11], and the acceptance of working in citizen science with different terms and methodologies [12].…”

“…Participatory design was most prominent (N=24) [42,44,45,50,57,61,63,66,69,74,75,77,78,80,82,83,85,91,100,104,106,117,119,123], followed by co-design (N=16) [55, 64,65,72,76,81,86,88,96,99,101,103,105,110,113,121]. Other often used terms were community based participatory research (N=9) [48, 52-54, 56, 70, 71, 93, 94], co-creation (N=8) [43,46,58,62,73,97,107,120], public and patient involvement (N=7) [67,…”