Healthcare systems require a paradigm shift in the way healthcare services are delivered to counteract demographic changes in patient populations, expanding technological developments and the increasing complexity of healthcare. Participatory design (PD) is a methodology that promotes the participation of users in the design process of potential telehealth applications. A PD project can be divided into four phases including: the identification and analysis of participant needs; the generation of ideas and development of prototypes; testing and further development of prototypes; and evaluation. PD is an iterative process where each phase is planned by reflecting on the results from the previous phase with respect to the participants' contribution. Key activities of a PD project include: fieldwork; literature reviewing; and development and testing. All activities must be applied with a participatory mindset that will ensure genuine participation throughout the project. Challenges associated with the use of PD include: the time required to properly engage with participants; language and culture barriers amongst participants; the selection of participants to ensure good representation of the user group; and empowerment. PD is an important process, which is complemented by other evaluation strategies that assess organisational requirements, clinical safety, and clinical and cost effectiveness. PD is a methodology which encourages genuine involvement, where participants have an opportunity to identify practical problems and to design and test technology. The process engages participants in storytelling, future planning and design. PD is a multifaceted assessment tool that helps explore more accurately clinical requirements and patient perspectives in telehealth.

Compared to an office-based case-finding strategy, the two-step systematic screening strategy had no overall effect on fracture incidence. The two-step strategy seemed, however, to be beneficial in the group of women who were identified by FRAX as moderate- or high-risk patients and complied with DXA.

In general, the women accepted the screening program. No major ethical reservations or adverse psychological consequences were detected. Only a minority of women declined screening participation due to a low perceived risk of osteoporosis.

BackgroundExercise has proven to reduce pain and increase quality of life among people living with osteoarthritis (OA). However, one major challenge is adherence to exercise once supervision ends.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify mental and physical barriers and motivational and social aspects of training at home, and to test or further develop an exercise app.MethodsThe study was inspired from participatory design, engaging users in the research process. Data were collected through focus groups and workshops, and analyzed by systematic text condensation.ResultsThree main themes were found: competition as motivation, training together, and barriers. The results revealed that the participants wanted to do their training and had knowledge on exercise and pain but found it hard to motivate themselves. They missed the observation, comments, and encouragement by the supervising physiotherapist as well as their peers. Ways to optimize the training app were identified during the workshops as participants shared their experience.ConclusionsThis study concludes that the long-term continuation of exercising for patients with OA could be improved with the use of a technology tailored to users’ needs, including motivational and other behavioral factors.

Background Existing self-management and behavioural interventions for diabetes vary widely in their content, and their sustained long-term effectiveness is uncertain. Autonomy supporting interventions may be a prerequisite to achieve ‘real life’ patient engagement and more long-term improvement through shared decision-making and collaborative goal setting. Autonomy supportive interventions aim to promote that the person with diabetes’ motivation is autonomous meaning that the person strives for goals they themselves truly believe in and value. This is the goal of self-determination theory and guided self-determination interventions. Self-determination theory has been reviewed but without assessing both benefits and harms and accounting for the risk of random errors using trial sequential analysis. The guided self-determination has not yet been systematically reviewed. The aim of this protocol is to investigate the benefits and harms of self-determination theory-based interventions versus usual care in adults with diabetes. Methods/design We will conduct the systematic review following The Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. This protocol is reported according to the PRISMA checklist. A comprehensive search will be undertaken in the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, PsycINFO, SCI-EXPANDED, CINAHL, SSCI, CPCI-S and CPCI-SSH to identify relevant trials. We will include randomised clinical trials assessing interventions theoretically based on guided self-determination or self-determination theory provided face-to-face or digitally by any healthcare professional in any setting. The primary outcomes will be quality of life, mortality, and serious adverse events. The secondary will be diabetes distress, depressive symptoms and adverse events not considered serious. Exploratory outcomes will be glycated haemoglobin and motivation. Outcomes will be assessed at the end of the intervention and at maximum follow-up. The analyses will be performed using Stata version 16 and trial sequential analysis. Two authors will independently screen, extract data from and perform risk of bias assessment of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Certainty of the evidence will be assessed by GRADE. Discussion Self-determination theory interventions aim to promote a more autonomous patient engagement and are commonly used. It is therefore needed to evaluate the benefit and harms according to existing trials. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020181144

This meta-synthesis provides knowledge for health professionals on the experiences and perspectives of being diagnosed with osteoporosis from the patient's point of view. The experience, meaning and significance of osteoporosis must be taken into consideration and can be used to promote tailored and targeted information and guidance on osteoporosis, bone care and treatment at different stages of the osteoporosis trajectory.

Aims and objectives: To explore the experiences and perspectives of nurses' transition into entrepreneurship in a clinical and cultural nursing setting and the impact of entrepreneurship on the nurses' role and professional identity.Background: Entrepreneurship is a relatively unknown phenomenon in international nursing research, and the prevalence of entrepreneurial nurses is only 0.5-1% of all working nurses globally. Unfortunately, several barriers occur within the healthcare system and existing nursing culture that may affect the potential of bringing entrepreneurship into the nursing profession. Design:The qualitative study used a phenomenological-hermeneutical approach based on an interpretative phenomenological analysis and COREQ-guided reporting. Methods: Nine individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted face to face (n = 6) and by telephone (n = 3) with Danish nurse entrepreneurs between February and March 2019. Results: The analysis revealed four themes: (a) prejudice towards entrepreneurship; (b) to become an entrepreneur in a nursing culture; (c) rebellion against the traditional role as employee and (d) challenged professional identity and new professional roles. Conclusion:Nurse entrepreneurs are caught between traditional and new ways of viewing nursing identity, norms, values and roles, and they face a conflict of professional values and a stereotyped view of 'real' nursing. Our findings show that entrepreneurship entails a huge learning process that develops nurses' ability to think outside the box in a broader health perspective and challenge the existing nursing culture and role. However, nurse entrepreneurs' ability to engage in entrepreneurship is compromised by professional values, the duty to behave as a good nurse and their own prejudices towards entrepreneurs.Impact: Entrepreneurship and nurse entrepreneurs pose a huge potential development of the nursing role and identity, as they challenge the current view on the nursing profession. This development is important for patients and health professionals, as future health challenges call for new ways of thinking and acting. | 4143 JAKOBSEN Et Al.

BackgroundExisting self-management and behavioural interventions for diabetes vary widely in their content, and their sustained long-term effectiveness is uncertain. Autonomy supporting interventions may be a prerequisite to achieve ‘real life’ patient engagement and more long-term improvement through shared decision making and collaborative goal setting. Autonomy supportive interventions aim to promote that the person with diabetes' motivation is autonomous meaning that the person strives for goals they themselves truly believe in and value. This is the goal of self-determination theory and guided self-determination interventions. Self-determination theory has been reviewed but without assessing both benefits and harms and accounting for the risk of random errors using trial sequential analysis. The guided self-determination has not yet been systematically reviewed. The aim of this protocol is to investigate the benefits and harms of self-determination theory-based interventions versus usual care in adults with diabetes.Methods/designWe will conduct the systematic review following The Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. This protocol is reported according to the PRISMA checklist. A comprehensive search will be undertaken in the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, PsycINFO, SCI-EXPANDED, CINAHL, SSCI, CPCI-S, and CPCI-SSH to identify relevant trials. We will include randomised clinical trials assessing interventions theoretically based on guided self-determination or self-determination theory provided face-to-face or digitally by any health care professional in any setting. The primary outcomes will be quality of life, mortality, and serious adverse events. The secondary will be diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, and adverse events not considered serious. Exploratory outcome will be glycated haemoglobin and motivation. Outcomes will be assessed at the end of the intervention and at maximum follow-up. The analyses will be performed using Stata version 16 and Trial Sequential Analysis. Two authors will independently screen, extract data from, and perform risk of bias assessment of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Certainty of the evidence will be assessed by GRADE.DiscussionSelf-determination theory interventions aim to promote a more autonomous patient engagement and are commonly used. It is therefore needed to evaluate the benefit and harms according to existing trials. Systematic review registration The protocol has been registered in PROSPERO ID nr. CRD42020181144 on the 5th July 2020.