Consumer Involvement in the Co-Design of Diabetes Self-Management Smartphone Apps: A Scoping Review

Christie L. Martin; Caitlin J. Bakker; Sayantani Sarkar; Rachael M. Kang; Nick F.H. Reid; Ming-Yuan Chih; Scott Sittig; Grace Gao; Corey B. Smith; Brad Morse; Katherine K. Kim; Liliana Laranjo; Velma L. Payne

doi:10.1055/a-2564-7682

Applied Clinical Informatics, Table of Contents

Appl Clin Inform 2025; 16(03): 698-707
DOI: 10.1055/a-2564-7682

Review Article

Consumer Involvement in the Co-Design of Diabetes Self-Management Smartphone Apps: A Scoping Review

Authors

Christie L. Martin ^*

¹School of Nursing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Caitlin J. Bakker ^*

²Dr. John Archer Library and Archives, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Sayantani Sarkar

³Yale School of Nursing, Yale University, Orange, Connecticut, United States
Rachael M. Kang

⁴Department of Information Sciences, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
Nick F.H. Reid

⁵Department of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington Seattle, Washington, United States
Ming-Yuan Chih

⁶College of Health Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, United States
Scott Sittig

⁷Department of Health Sciences, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, Louisiana, United States
Grace Gao

⁸School of Nursing, Saint Catherine University, Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States
Corey B. Smith

⁹Department of Pathology, University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Grand Forks, North Dakota, United States
Brad Morse

¹⁰School of Medicine-General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, United States
Katherine K. Kim

¹¹Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California Davis, Davis, California, United States
Liliana Laranjo ^**

¹²Westmead Applied Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Velma L. Payne ^**

¹³Kasiska Division of Health Sciences, Department of Community and Public Health, Idaho State University, Meridian, Idaho, United States

¹⁴Department of Veterans Affairs, Boise VA Medical Center, Idaho, United States

Abstract

Objectives

Consumer involvement in the co-design of diabetes self-management smartphone apps is vital. This scoping review explored how consumers are involved in the co-design processes and methods and approaches guiding this research.

Methods

Our review was guided by Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage framework, PRISMA-ScR guidelines, and Witteman and colleagues' 11-item user-centered design (UCD-11) framework. We searched literature across five databases and examined types of consumer involvement in co-design and frequency of methods and approaches (i.e., co-design approaches, behavioral theories, and other frameworks), synthesizing findings in SPSS and Excel.

Results

Of the 14,206 initial items, 283 articles were included. Most studies were conducted in Asia (33.2%) and focused on type 2 diabetes (43.1%). All articles addressed at least one UCD principle, and prototype evaluation (UCD-3) was the most frequent (82.3%); 85.2% addressed iterative responsiveness (factor 2). Most articles (66.8%) did not report a particular method or approach; 20.5% used design-related approaches, with user-centered design being the most common (7.4%). Few articles (3.9%) utilized social cognitive theory.

Conclusion

Overall, co-design activities were isolated by phase. Consumers were primarily involved in evaluating prototypes and had limited engagement in the early stages. Iterative responsiveness factor activities were underreported or limited in scope. The use of approaches, theories, and frameworks was inconsistent. Consumer involvement in the co-design of diabetes self-management apps is often limited to later phases, with minimal engagement during the critical preprototype phase. To enhance the relevance, effectiveness, and adoption of diabetes self-management apps, app designers should improve the reporting of co-design activities and engage consumers across all co-design phases.

Keywords

smartphone - diabetes - self-management - consumer health informatics - mobile applications

Full Text

References

References
1 Bombard Y, Baker GR, Orlando E. et al. Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review. Implement Sci 2018; 13 (01) 98
2 Elwyn G, Nelson E, Hager A, Price A. Coproduction: when users define quality. BMJ Qual Saf 2020; 29 (09) 711-716
3 Masterson D, Areskoug Josefsson K, Robert G, Nylander E, Kjellström S. Mapping definitions of co-production and co-design in health and social care: a systematic scoping review providing lessons for the future. Health Expect 2022; 25 (03) 902-913
4 Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I. et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem 2017; 3: 13
5 Slattery P, Saeri AK, Bragge P. Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst 2020; 18 (01) 17
6 Harrison JD, Auerbach AD, Anderson W. et al. Patient stakeholder engagement in research: a narrative review to describe foundational principles and best practice activities. Health Expect 2019; 22 (03) 307-316
7 Yardley L, Morrison L, Bradbury K, Muller I. The person-based approach to intervention development: application to digital health-related behavior change interventions. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17 (01) e30
8 Witteman HO, Vaisson G, Provencher T. et al. An 11-item measure of user- and human-centered design for personal health tools (UCD-11): development and validation. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23 (03) e15032
9 Noorbergen TJ, Adam MTP, Roxburgh M, Teubner T. Co-design in mHealth systems development: insights from a systematic literature review. AIS Trans Hum-Comput Interact 2021; 13 (02) 175-205
10 Sumner J, Chong LS, Bundele A, Wei Lim Y. Co-designing technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Gerontologist 2021; 61 (07) e395-e409
11 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 2016; 5 (03) 160-167
12 Costa DSJ, Mercieca-Bebber R, Tesson S, Seidler Z, Lopez AL. Patient, client, consumer, survivor or other alternatives? A scoping review of preferred terms for labelling individuals who access healthcare across settings. BMJ Open 2019; 9 (03) e025166
13 Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ. et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect 2015; 18 (05) 1151-1166
14 Vargas C, Whelan J, Brimblecombe J, Allender S. Co-creation, co-design, co-production for public health - a perspective on definition and distinctions. Public Health Res Pract 2022; 32 (02) 3222211
15 Vial S, Boudhraâ S, Dumont M. Human-centered design approaches in digital mental health interventions: exploratory mapping review. JMIR Ment Health 2022; 9 (06) e35591
16 Morton E, Barnes SJ, Michalak EE. Participatory digital health research: a new paradigm for mHealth tool development. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2020; 66: 67-69
17 Schweitzer R, Schlögl S, Schweitzer M. Technology-supported behavior change—applying design thinking to mHealth application development. Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ 2024; 14 (03) 584-608
18 Kip H, Keizer J, da Silva MC, Beerlage-de Jong N, Köhle N, Kelders SM. Methods for human-centered eHealth development: narrative scoping review. J Med Internet Res 2022; 24 (01) e31858
19 Moore G, Wilding H, Gray K, Castle D. Participatory methods to engage health service users in the development of electronic health resources: systematic review. J Particip Med 2019; 11 (01) e11474
20 Chudyk AM, Horrill T, Waldman C. et al. Scoping review of models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research. BMJ Open 2022; 12 (08) e063507
21 Fleming GA, Petrie JR, Bergenstal RM, Holl RW, Peters AL, Heinemann L. Diabetes digital app technology: benefits, challenges, and recommendations. A consensus report by the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Diabetes Technology Working Group. Diabetologia 2020; 63 (02) 229-241
22 Martinez W, Hackstadt AJ, Hickson GB. et al. The my diabetes care patient portal intervention: usability and pre-post assessment. Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12 (03) 539-550
23 Groat D, Soni H, Grando MA, Thompson B, Kaufman D, Cook CB. Design and testing of a smartphone application for real-time self-tracking diabetes self-management behaviors. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (02) 440-449
24 Saver BG, Marquard JL, Gummeson J, Stekler J, Scanlon JM. Buy or build: challenges developing consumer digital health interventions. Appl Clin Inform 2023; 14 (04) 803-810
25 Huang MX, Wang MC, Wu BY. Telehealth education via WeChat improves the quality of life of parents of children with type-1 diabetes mellitus. Appl Clin Inform 2022; 13 (01) 263-269
26 Hou C, Carter B, Hewitt J, Francisa T, Mayor S. Do mobile phone applications improve glycemic control (HbA1c) in the self-management of diabetes? A systematic review, meta-analysis, and GRADE of 14 randomized trials. Diabetes Care 2016; 39 (11) 2089-2095
27 Bonoto BC, de Araújo VE, Godói IP. et al. Efficacy of mobile apps to support the care of patients with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017; 5 (03) e4
28 Wu X, Guo X, Zhang Z. The efficacy of mobile phone apps for lifestyle modification in diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019; 7 (01) e12297
29 Wang L, Wu T, Guo X, Zhang X, Li Y, Wang W. Exploring mHealth monitoring service acceptance from a service characteristics perspective. Electron Commerce Res Appl 2018; 30: 159-168
30 Torous J, Nicholas J, Larsen ME, Firth J, Christensen H. Clinical review of user engagement with mental health smartphone apps: evidence, theory and improvements. Evid Based Ment Health 2018; 21 (03) 116-119
31 Kim KK, McGrath SP, Solorza JL, Lindeman D. The ACTIVATE digital health pilot program for diabetes and hypertension in an underserved and rural community. Appl Clin Inform 2023; 14 (04) 644-653
32 Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005; 8 (01) 19-32
33 Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W. et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169 (07) 467-473
34 Martin C, Bakker C, Morse B. et al Protocol: Consumer involvement in the co-creation of mobile app interventions for diabetes self-management - a scoping review. Open Science Framework. Protocol published August 18, 2024. doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/EQHKJ
35 Jackson JL, Kuriyama A, Anton A. et al. The accuracy of Google Translate for abstracting data from non–English-language trials for systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 2019; 171 (09) 677-679
36 The EndNote Team. EndNote 20. Clarivate; 2013. Accessed June 30, 2024 at: https://endnote.com/
37 Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016; 5 (01) 210
38 Zainuddin, Abdullah AZ, Jafar N. et al. The application of social cognitive theory (SCT) to the mHealth diabetes physical activity (PA) app to control blood sugar levels of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in Takalar regency. J Public Health Res 2023 ;12(2):22799036231172759
39 Alyafei A, Easton-Carr R. The health belief model of behavior change. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024. . Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK606120/
40 Ammenwerth E. Technology acceptance models in health informatics: TAM and UTAUT. Stud Health Technol Inform 2019; 263: 64-71
41 Rahimi B, Nadri H, Lotfnezhad Afshar H, Timpka T. A systematic review of the technology acceptance model in health informatics. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (03) 604-634
42 Qualtrics [Software]. Published online 2024. Accessed June 30, 2024 at: https://www.qualtrics.com
43 OpenRefine [Software]. Published online 2024. Accessed June 30, 2024 at: https://openrefine.org
44 Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Excel [Software]. Published online 2024. Accessed June 30, 2024 at: https://office.microsoft.com/excel
45 IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. IBM Corporation; 2024. Accessed June 30, 2024 at: https://www.ibm.com/spss
46 Malloy J, Partridge SR, Kemper JA, Braakhuis A, Roy R. Co-design of digital health interventions with young people: a scoping review. Digit Health 2023 ;9:20552076231219117
47 Busse TS, Jux C, Laser J. et al. Involving health care professionals in the development of electronic health records: scoping review. JMIR Hum Factors 2023; 10: e45598
48 Silva AG, Caravau H, Martins A. et al. Procedures of user-centered usability assessment for digital solutions: scoping review of reviews reporting on digital solutions relevant for older adults. JMIR Hum Factors 2021; 8 (01) e22774
49 Beighton C, Victor C, Carey IM. et al. ‘I’m sure we made it a better study…': experiences of adults with intellectual disabilities and parent carers of patient and public involvement in a health research study. J Intellect Disabil 2019; 23 (01) 78-96
50 Synnot AJ, Cherry CL, Summers MP. et al. Consumer engagement critical to success in an Australian research project: reflections from those involved. Aust J Prim Health 2018; 24 (03) 197-203
51 Hurley E, Dietrich T, Rundle-Thiele S. Integrating theory in co-design: an abductive approach. Australas Mark J 2021; 29 (01) 66-77
52 Magliano DJ, Boyko EJ. IDF Diabetes Atlas. 10th edition.. Brussels: International Diabetes Federation; 2021. . Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK581934/
53 Sheet MF. Pew Research Center. November 14, 2024. Accessed February 8, 2025 at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/
54 Bakker CJ, Koffel JB, Theis-Mahon NR. Measuring the health literacy of the upper Midwest. J Med Libr Assoc 2017; 105 (01) 34-43
55 Hecker I, Briggs A. Overlooked and Underconnected: Exploring Disparities in Digital Skill Levels by Race among Older Youth in the US. 2021 . Accessed February 8, 2025 at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/103460/overlooked-and-underconnected-exploring-disparities-in-digital-skill-levels-by-race-among-older-youth-in-the-us.pdf
56 Kyaw MY, Aung MN, Koyanagi Y. et al. Sociodigital determinants of eHealth literacy and related impact on health outcomes and eHealth use in Korean older adults: community-based cross-sectional survey. JMIR Aging 2024; 7: e56061
57 Lane S, Fitzsimmons E, Zelefksy A. et al. Assessing electronic health literacy at an urban academic hospital. Appl Clin Inform 2023; 14 (02) 365-373
58 Hsiao V, Chandereng T, Lankton RL. et al. Disparities in telemedicine access: a cross-sectional study of a newly established infrastructure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12 (03) 445-458
59 Brewster RCL, Zhang J, Stewart M, Kaur R, Arellano M, Bourgeois F. A prescription for internet: feasibility of a tablet loaner program to address digital health inequities. Appl Clin Inform 2023; 14 (02) 273-278
60 Wu RR, Myers RA, Buchanan AH. et al. Effect of sociodemographic factors on uptake of a patient-facing information technology family health history risk assessment platform. Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10 (02) 180-188
61 Moll S, Wyndham-West M, Mulvale G. et al. Are you really doing ‘codesign’? Critical reflections when working with vulnerable populations. BMJ Open 2020; 10 (11) e038339

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material (PDF) (opens in new window)