Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Co-design of mHealth Delivered Interventions: A Systematic Review to Assess Key Methods and Processes

Current Nutrition Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most mobile health (mHealth) programmes are designed with minimal input from target end users and are not truly personalised or adaptive to their specific and evolving needs. This review describes the methods and processes used in the co-design of mHealth interventions. Nine relevant studies of varying design were identified following searches of six academic databases. All employed co-design or participatory methods for the development of a health intervention delivered via a mobile device, with three focusing on health behaviour change (one on nutrition) and six on management of a health condition. Overall, six key phases of design and 17 different methods were used. Sufficiency of reporting was poor, and no study undertook a robust assessment of efficacy; these factors should be a focus for future studies. An opportunity exists to use co-design methods to develop acceptable and feasible mHealth interventions, especially to support improved nutrition and for minority and indigenous groups.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Forouzanfar MH, Alexander L, Anderson HR, Bachman VF, Biryukov S, Brauer M, Burnett R, Casey D, Coates MM, Cohen A, et al. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00128-2. Published online 10 September.

  2. Kemp S, We are social. Special report: Digital, social and mobile worldwide in 2015. Available: http://wearesocial.com/uk/special-reports/digital-social-mobile-worldwide-2015. 2015. Accessed 01 Jan 2016.

  3. Pew Research Centre. Communications technology in emerging and developing nations. Available: http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/03/19/1-communications-technology-in-emerging-and-developing-nations/. Accessed 19 Apr 2016.

  4. Free C, Phillips G, Galli L, Watson L, Felix L, Edwards P, et al. The effectiveness of mobile-health technology-based health behaviour change or disease management interventions for health care consumers: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2013;10(1):e1001362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001362 . This systematic review of randomised controlled trials summarises the current evidence for the efficacy of mobile health interventions, and includes a robust meta-analysis.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Hall A, Cole-Lewis H, Bernhardt J. Mobile text messaging for health: a systematic review of reviews. Annu Rev Publ Health. 2015;36:393–415. This systematic review of reviews summarises the current evidence for the efficacy of text messages as an intervention to improve health and create health behaviour change.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Johns K. Mangere Healthy Kai: an evaluation. Auckland: Auckland Regional Public Health Service; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bennett GG, Steinberg DM, Stoute C, Lanpher M, Lane I, Askew S, et al. Electronic health (eHealth) interventions for weight management among racial/ethnic minority adults: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2014;15 Suppl 4:146–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/obr.12218 . This systematic review summarises the current evidence for the efficacy of eHealth interventions to promote weight loss among indigenous and minority groups.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brusse C, Gardner K, McAullay D, Dowden M. Social media and mobile apps for health promotion in Australian indigenous populations: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(12):E280. doi:10.2196/jmir.3614.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Peiris D, Brown A, Cass A. Addressing inequities in access to quality healthcare for indigenous people. Can Med Assoc J. 2008;179(10):985–6. doi:10.1506/cmaj.081445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Boyd H, McKernon S, Mullen B, Old A. Improving healthcare through the use of co-design. New Zeal Med J. 2012;125(1357):76–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Syme L. Social determinants of health: the community as an empowered partner. Prev Chronic Dis. 2004;1(1):1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nakamura N. What is a community’s desire? A critical look at participatory research projects with indigenous communities. Soc Cult Geogr. 2015;16(2):165–82. doi:10.1080/14649365.2014.959549. This manuscript describes the potential long-term efficacy of co-designed interventions in indigenous communities, using two communities in Japan as case studies.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Isreal BA, Schultz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Ann Rev Public Health. 1998;19:173–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bratteteig T, Bødker K, Dittrich Y, Holst Mogensen P, Simonsen J. Methods: organising principles and general guidelines for participatory design projects edition. In: Simonsen J, Robertson T, editors. International Handbook of Participatory Design: Routledge. 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  15. World Health Organization. mHealth. New horizons for health through mobile technologies, Global Observatory for eHealth series. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  16. The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Available: www.cochrane-handbook.org: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2015. Accessed 17 Jun 2016.

  17. Bate P, Robert G. Experience-based design: from redesigning the system around the patient to co-designing services with the patient. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;13(1):19–25.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomised trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:295–310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Davidson KW, Goldstein M, Kaplan RM, Kaufmann PG, Knatterud GL, Orleans CT, et al. Evidence-based behavioral medicine: what is it and how do we achieve it? Ann Behav Med. 2003;26:161–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hingle M, Nichter M, Medeiros M, Grace S. Texting for health: the use of participatory methods to develop healthy lifestyle messages for teens. J Nutr Educ Behav 2013;45(1):12–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2012.05.001.

  21. Lin PH, Intille S, Bennett G, Bosworth HB, Corsino L, Voils C, Grambow S, Lazenka T, Batch BC, Tyson C, et al. Adaptive intervention design in mobile health: intervention design and development in the Cell Phone Intervention for You trial. Clinical Trials 2015;12(6):634–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1740774515597222.

  22. Ben-Zeev D, Kaiser SM, Brenner CJ, Begale M, Duffecy J, Mohr DC. Development and usability testing of FOCUS: a smartphone system for self-management of schizophrenia. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2013;36(4):289–96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/prj0000019.

  23. Berg M, Adolfsson A, Ranerup A, Sparud-Lundin C, University of Gothenburg Centre for Person-Centred C. Person-centered web support to women with type 1 diabetes in pregnancy and early motherhood—the development process. Diabetes Technol Ther 2013;15(1):20–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/dia.2012.0217.

  24. Hanson E, Magnusson L, Arvidsson H, Claesson A, Keady J, Nolan M. Working together with persons with early stage dementia and their family members to design a user-friendly technology-based support service. Dementia 2007;6(3):411-34 24p.

  25. Dingwall KM, Puszka S, Sweet M, Nagel T. 'Like drawing into sand': acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness of a new e-mental health resource for service providers working with aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people. Australian Psychologist 2015;50(1):60-9 10p. doi: 10.1111/ap.12100.

  26. Groussard PY, Pigot H, Giroux S. From conception to evaluation of mobile services for people with head injury: A participatory design perspective. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2015:1–22. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2015.1117499.

  27. Kanis M, Brinkman WP, Perry M. Designing for positive disclosure: what do you like today? Int J Ind Ergonom. 2009;39(3):564–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2008.10.001.

  28. Pulman A, Hill J, Taylor J, Galvin K, Masding MG. Innovative mobile technology alcohol education for young people with type 1 diabetes. Practical Diabetes 2013;30(9):376-9a 1p. doi: 10.1002/pdi.1814.

  29. Muller MJ, Kuhn S. Participatory design. Commun ACM. 1993;36(3):24–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Spinuzzi C. The methodology of participatory design. Tech Commun. 2005;52:163–74.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Dolbec A, Clement J. La recherche-action. In: Karsenti T, Savoie-Zajc L, editors. Introduction a la recherche en education. Sherbrooke: Editions due Centre de Ressources pedagogique de l'universite Laval; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gregory J. Scandinavian approaches to participatory design. Int J Eng Educ. 2003;19(1):62–74.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Magnusson L, Hanson E, Nolan M. The impact of information and communication technology on family carers of older people and professionals in Sweden. Ageing Soc. 2005;25(5):693–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Elyn G, Kreuwel I, Durand MA, Sivell S, Joseph-Williams N, Evans R, et al. How to develop web-based decision support interventions for patients: a process map. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;82:260–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mumford E. The story of socio-technical design: reflections on its successes, failures, and potential. Inf Syst J. 2006;16:317–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What's missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews. Brit Med J. 2008;336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39590.732037.47. This manuscript describes the importance of adequate resorting of interventions in trials and reviews. Common elements that are not described well and included, in addition to how authors can supply missing information.

  37. Hoffmann TC, Erueti C, Glasziou PP. Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials. Brit Med J. 2013;347(f3755). doi:10.1136/bmj.f3755 . This manuscript describes the magnitude of insufficient reporting of non-pharmacological interventions, and what should be done about it.

  38. Agarwal S, LeFevre AE, Lee J, L'Engle K, Mehl G, Sinha C, Labrique A, WHO mHelath Technical Evidence Review Group. Guidelines for reporting of health interventions using mobile phones: mobile health (mHealth) evidence reporting and assessment (mERA) checklist. Brit Med J. 2016;352. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i74.

  39. World Health Organization. Indigenous peoples and participatory health research. Available: http://www.who.int/ethics/indigenous_peoples/en/index6.html. Accessed 21 Apr 2016

  40. Hoffman TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, Altman DG, Barbour V, Macdonald H, Johnston M, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. Brit Med J. 2014;348. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1687).

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Healthier Lives He Oranga Hauora National Science Challenge (New Zealand).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helen Eyles.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Helen Eyles, Andrew Jull, Rosie Dobson, Ridvan Firestone, Robyn Whittaker, Lisa Te Morenga, Debbie Goodwin and Cliona Ni Mhurchu declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 93 kb)

ESM 2

(DOC 19.5 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eyles, H., Jull, A., Dobson, R. et al. Co-design of mHealth Delivered Interventions: A Systematic Review to Assess Key Methods and Processes. Curr Nutr Rep 5, 160–167 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13668-016-0165-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13668-016-0165-7

Keywords

Navigation