ONKOVIS, Co-designed Oncology Follow-up Visualisation Tool

Mujika, Mikel Garmendia; Epelde, Gorka; Zabala, Beñat; Sucre, Aurora; Etxeberria, Arantxa; Cajaraville, Gerardo; Belloso, Jon; Luengo, José Fernando; Camarero, Soraya

doi:10.5220/0007250101900198

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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]. One study was conducted in Belgium [49], India [50], Italy [58], Brazil [62], Spain [64], Germany [73], Korea [82], France [84], Peru [93], and South Africa [101].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the 83 records was based on a quantitative research design, all other included record had a research design based on qualitative methodologies. 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].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Leersum

Jaschinski

Bults

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citizen science can be a powerful approach to foster the successful implementation of technological innovations in health, care or well-being. Involving experience experts as co-researchers or co-designers of technological innovations facilitates mutual learning, community building, and empowerment. By utilizing the expert knowledge of the intended users, innovations have a better chance to get adopted and solve complex health-related problems. As citizen science is still a relatively new practice for health and well-being, little is known about effective methods and guidelines for successful collaboration. This scoping review aims to provide insight in 1) the levels of citizen involvement in current research on technological innovations for health, care or well-being, 2) the best practices and used participatory methodologies, and 3) lesson’s learned by the researchers. The search was performed in SCOPUS in January 2021 and included peer-reviewed journal and conference papers published between 2016 and 2020. The final selection (N=83) was limited to empirical studies that had a clear focus on technological innovations for health, care or well-being and involved citizens at the level of collaboration or higher. Our results show a growing interest in citizens science as an inclusive research approach. Citizens are predominantly involved in the design phase of innovations and less in the preparation, data-analyses or reporting phase. Eight records had citizens in the lead in one of the research phases. Researcher use different terms to describe their methodological approach including participatory design, co-design, community based participatory research, co-creation, public and patient involvement, partcipatory action research, user-centered design and citizen science. Our selection of best practice cases shows that succesfull citizen science projects develope a structural and longtidutinal partnership with their collaborators, use a situated and adaptive research approach, and have researchers that are willing to give-up tradional power dynamics and engage in a mutual learning experience.

show abstract