Lessons Learned Designing and Using an Online Discussion Forum for Care Coordinators in Primary Care

Ferrante, Joan M.; Friedman, Asia; Shaw, Eric K.; Howard, Jenna; Cohen, Deborah J.; Shahidi, Laleh

doi:10.1177/1049732315609567

Cited by 21 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(48 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This could provide useful insights, for example into women's concerns about pool use, an area little explored in previous research. Furthermore, although utilising online discussion groups enabled access to a geographically diverse population, this method may have resulted in sampling bias through excluding those with low levels of digital literacy (Ferrante et al., 2016). To enhance security of the online groups, registration was a two-stage process, which may have been a barrier to participation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors influencing the use of birth pools in the United Kingdom: Perspectives of women, midwives and medical staff

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo identify factors influencing the use of birth pools.DesignOnline discussion groups and semi-structured interviews, analysed thematically.SettingUnited Kingdom.Participants85 women and 21 midwives took part in online discussion groups; 14 medical staff participated in interviews.FindingsFactors influencing the use of birth pools were grouped into three overarching categories: resources, unit culture and guidelines, and staff endorsement. Resources encompassed pool availability, efficiency of pool use and availability of waterproof cardiotocograph equipment. Unit culture and guidelines related to eligibility criteria for pool use, medicalisation of birth and differences between midwifery-led and obstetric-led care. Staff endorsement encompassed attitudes towards pool use.Key conclusionsAccessibility of birth pools was often limited by eligibility criteria. While midwifery-led units were generally supportive of pool use, obstetric-led units were described as an over-medicalised environment in which pool use was restricted and relied on maternal request.Implications for practiceMidwives can improve women's access to birth pools by providing information antenatally and proactively offering this as an option in labour. Maternity units should work to implement evidence-based guidelines on pool use, increase pool availability (even where there appears to be low demand), and enhance awareness amongst medical staff of the benefits of water immersion.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors influencing the use of birth pools in the United Kingdom: Perspectives of women, midwives and medical staff

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other than this and their ability to create forum threads, no other distinction was made between them and participants. This is different from other online discussion studies, such as Ferrante et al (), who defined moderators “as someone who would clarify postings, elicit elaboration or explanation, foster interaction, encourage reflection, keep participants on track, offer support, and enforce the rules of engagement” (p. 1854). The moderators aimed to create a community of individuals working toward a shared goal, who shared similar journeys and experiences – and endeavored to avoid power inequities which would emphasize differences.…”

Section: Building the Online Communitymentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Previous research has observed that an increasing number of researchers are designing online discussion forums for qualitative health research, and yet there is limited literature in which researchers have documented their experiences and lessons learned to demonstrate the viability and validity of this method (Ferrante et al, ). In this article, we report our experiences in an effort to ameliorate this knowledge gap.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

De‐constructing the co‐construction: Researcher stance, the nature of data and community building in an online participatory platform to create a knowledge repository

Kaplan

Chen

Carriere

2017

Proc. Assoc. Info. Sci. Tech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we provide a reflexive account of the design of the Body Listening Project, a participatory platform in which participants were invited to engage collectively in the building of a public repository. The Body Listening Project was an online collaborative space, with a designated "ThinkSpace," for participants and moderators to share their experiences of "body listening" and more broadly, self-management of health. The participatory platform on which the study took place was an active, evolving environment that was shaped by participants of many different backgrounds. In particular, we elaborate upon three critical aspects of our research design: researcher stance, the nature of data, and online community development. It is our hope that explicating the design decisions that were made in this study can stimulate researchers' consideration of these issues in their own projects, as well as inform the design of future research involving collaborative and participatory frameworks.

show abstract

“…Participants could choose from the categories outlined in Figure 2, with a change in direction towards more people being involved labelled as 'widening', the inverse as 'narrowing'. Online methods of discussion are appropriate where a group of people is geographically dispersed and face to face discussion is impractical 32 . We selected an asynchronous online discussion format for this study as it allowed flexibility, especially regarding participants contributing from different time-zones.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-Designing Genomics Research With A Large Group of Donor-Conceived Siblings

Nunn

Crawshaw

Lacaze

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Human genomics research is growing rapidly. More effective methods are required for co-design and involving people, especially those from vulnerable sub-populations of inherently high interest to medical research. This case study documents how we worked with a large group of donor-conceived siblings who share the same sperm donor father, to explore how they might want to engage with and influence any future genomic research. Method: A participatory action research process was used to explore the views of a group of 18 known donor-conceived siblings; who are part of a larger group of up to 1000 people who share the same biological father. The discussion explored views about how the group would like to be involved in future research. Five members participated in co-design; 12 completed a pre-discussion online survey; and six participated in an online discussion forum and evaluation survey. The online discussion was led by one facilitator, supported by the study team. Results: Co-design informed the research process. Participants reported enjoying the overall experience of the surveys and discussion forum, which were perceived as inclusive and flexible. Most participants’ views regarding the value of involvement in research changed during the process, and ‘widened’ about who should be involved. Participants were supportive of future research being done with the siblings group. All who completed the final survey requested to remain part of the co-design process. Other themes in the online discussion included concerns about conflicting interests and a desire for research participation to improve the situation for people affected by assisted conception. The process informed later discussions in the sibling group about participating in a self-managed biobank and informed decision making about participating in genomics research. Conclusion: Findings from this study help inform how people from certain sub-populations should be involved in planning and defining their participation in genomic research; particularly those from more vulnerable or high-interest populations. This process provides a replicable and practical method of involving potential participants in co-designing genomics research using online discussions, with reported positive outcomes. Reporting this study using ‘Standardised data on initiatives (STARDIT)’ to report the process allows comparison with other studies.

show abstract

Lessons Learned Designing and Using an Online Discussion Forum for Care Coordinators in Primary Care

Cited by 21 publications

References 40 publications

Factors influencing the use of birth pools in the United Kingdom: Perspectives of women, midwives and medical staff

Factors influencing the use of birth pools in the United Kingdom: Perspectives of women, midwives and medical staff

De‐constructing the co‐construction: Researcher stance, the nature of data and community building in an online participatory platform to create a knowledge repository

Co-Designing Genomics Research With A Large Group of Donor-Conceived Siblings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About