Characteristic | Case | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | D | |
Academic context | ||||
 Product aim | To aid clinicians caring for patients with syndrome A | To enable primary care practitioners to compare local with national prescribing habits regarding drug B | To support the collection, processing and presentation of patient experience data | To encourage the use of evidence |
 Project funder | Collaboration of AHSNs, regional applied health research organisation and national charitable campaign | Regional grant funded by the government | National funding agency | National funding charity |
 Product host | National professional organisation | The university | NHS sites Text mining tool hosted by the university | The university |
 Product delivered | Yes | Product delivered but with less functionality than planned | Bespoke tools for each NHS site No cohesive, publicly available product | Yes |
Aspects of the product | ||||
 Perceived need | Needed | Something is needed—is this it? | Unclear | Unclear |
 Clarity of product aim | Well defined | Well defined | Complex | Unclear |
 Type of product aim | Instrumental | Instrumental | More conceptual | Definitely conceptual |
 Intended user | Primary care practitioners | Primary care practitioners | Patient experience teams | Evaluators and decision-makers |
 Clarity of user | Clear | Clear | Clear | Contested |
 Range of user group | Narrow | Narrow | Diffuse | Broad |
Aspects of development | ||||
 Vision for stakeholder engagement | Project team to consist of key stakeholders Planned to formulate product based on learning event and to obtain user feedback | Preliminary engagement planned clearly Subsequent engagement lacked strategy | Clear vision embedded throughout the project Co-design of bespoke tools for each site through qualitative interviews, focus groups and observation of tools in practice, with subsequent formal evaluation | Clear plans for interviews and a focus group to elicit feedback |
 Delivery of stakeholder engagement | Project team all contributed to the product development Little stakeholder engagement outside the core project team No changes made after learning event No user feedback | Initial stakeholder event contributed to the original vision for the product Influential stakeholders recruited to shape and champion product Regular interactions with stakeholders were not maintained and feedback not systematically assimilated/integrated into the product | Delivered | Reduced number of interactions (fewer interviews, no focus group) End of study workshop Iterative changes to the product based on interviews and end-of-study workshop |
 Summary of stakeholder engagement (see Table 4 for the expansion of terms) | Embedded | Tokenistic | Co-design | Consultation |
 Role of the main researcher | Participant observer | Observer | Participant observer | Observer, consulted formally |
Product application | ||||
 Perception of use in practice | Well regarded | Regarded as potentially useful but lacking key attributes desired by users | Variable use across NHS sites participating in the project | Regarded as interesting but unlikely to be used in practice |
 Web hits (12 months) | 3268 | Not yet available | No data available on hits for the text mining tool | 151 (downloads) 202 (online) |
 Trajectory of website hits (12 months) | Stable | N/A | N/A | Reducing |
 Summary label regarding use | ‘Is being used’ | ‘Might be used’ | ‘Some tools used locally’ | ‘Appears not to be used’ |