JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Thorough participatory development of eHealth is necessary to ensure a good fit between the technology, its users and the context. However, despite the importance of development and the availability of frameworks, not much is known about specific methods for different aims, phases and settings, resulting in researchers having to reinvent the wheel. Consequently, there is a need to synthesize existing knowledge on methods for participatory development processes for eHealth interventions.

Objective:

The three main goals of this review were (1) to create an overview of development methods used in studies based on the CeHRes Roadmap, (2) to create an overview of goals for which these methods can be used, and (3) to provide insight into the lessons learned about these methods.

Methods:

We included eHealth development studies that were based on the phases and/or principles of the CeHRes Roadmap. This framework was selected due to its focus on participatory, iterative eHealth design in context and to limit the scope of this review. Data were extracted about the type of method used, the rationale for using the method, the research questions, and reported information on lessons learned. The most mentioned lessons learned were summarized via a narrative, inductive approach.

Results:

The search strategy resulted in 160 papers. A distinction was made between development 'methods' (n = 10) and 'products' (n = 7). Methods are used to gather new data, while products can be used to synthesize previously collected data and to support the collection of new data. The identified methods were: focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, usability tests, literature studies, desk research, log data analyses, card sorting, Delphi studies, and experience sampling. The identified products were: prototypes, requirements, stakeholder maps, values, behavior change strategies, personas, and business models. Examples of how these methods and products were applied in the development process and information about lessons learned were provided.

Conclusions:

This study shows that there is a plethora of methods and products that can be used at different points in the development process and in different settings. To do justice to the complexity of eHealth development, it seems that multiple methods should be combined, and attention should be paid to the way in which they are complementary. Additionally, we found no evidence that there is a single step-by-step approach to develop eHealth: rather, researchers need to select the most suitable research methods for their research objectives, the context in which data is collected, and the characteristics of the participants. The current study serves as a first step towards a toolkit to support researchers in shaping the most suitable and efficient development process for eHealth interventions that fit with their context and users.