3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Using Personas in the development of eHealth interventions for chronic pain: A scoping review and narrative synthesis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          Behavioral eHealth interventions can enhance self-management and improve well-being in people with chronic pain. The development of these interventions calls for a user-centered approach to ensure that patient needs are appreciated. However, it may be challenging to involve patients; particularly during the early stages of the process. Fictional user profiles, known as Personas, can represent needs and guide designing eHealth interventions. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the use of Personas in the development of behavioral eHealth interventions for people with chronic pain with the aim to identify benefits and challenges.

          Methods

          Bibliographic databases (Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, PsycInfo, CINAHL) and registries (PubMed Central, medaRxiv) were systematically searched. In a double-reviewing process, n = 6830 hits and n = 351 full-texts were screened and read. Ten peer-reviewed studies published between 2017 and 2022 were included in the narrative synthesis.

          Findings

          Ten studies reported using “Pain Personas” in the development of eHealth interventions for such purposes as to gain a shared understanding of the user and to discuss solutions in team meetings, or for patients to identify with (if Personas are included in the intervention). Personas were based on qualitative and/or quantitative data. However, the procedure for creating Personas was only described in half of the included studies ( n = 5). These five studies provided descriptive details of the Personas (i.e., picture, name, narrative of their pain behavior, technological skills, and motivation).

          Conclusions

          Although Personas have been used by pain researchers in recent projects and were highlighted as an important ingredient in the development process, available design guidelines for the creation and use of Personas are not followed or communicated transparently. Benefits and challenges when using Personas in the development of eHealth interventions for people with chronic pain are discussed to support future eHealth efforts and to improve the quality of eHealth innovation in the field of pain.

          Highlights

          • Personas are increasingly used by researchers for scientific innovation.

          • More scientific rigor and transparency on the Personas process is needed.

          • Pain Personas reflect users’ background, behaviors, thoughts, and technology use.

          • Guidelines for the use of Pain Personas are needed and should be evaluated.

          Related collections

          Most cited references83

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

          Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

            Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews

              The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Internet Interv
                Internet Interv
                Internet Interventions
                Elsevier
                2214-7829
                03 April 2023
                April 2023
                03 April 2023
                : 32
                : 100619
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
                [b ]Institute of Social Sciences, Uskudar University, Istanbul, Turkey
                [c ]Department of Medicine and Optometry, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Region Kalmar County, Sweden
                [d ]Center for Health and Medical Psychology (CHAMP), School of Law, Psychology, and Social Work, Örebro University, Sweden
                [e ]Division of Clinical Psychology, Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
                [f ]Pain clinic, Capio St. Göran Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: Nobels väg 9, 171 65 Solna, Sweden. sara.bartels@ 123456ki.se
                Article
                S2214-7829(23)00019-2 100619
                10.1016/j.invent.2023.100619
                10235431
                37273935
                c2119480-8935-4dea-b97c-b2c416b1439e
                © 2023 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 9 December 2022
                : 3 March 2023
                : 31 March 2023
                Categories
                Review article

                user research,personas,internet,intervention,development,chronic pain

                Comments

                Comment on this article