Background: Current eHealth interventions are poorly adopted by people with low health literacy (LHL) as they often fail to meet their needs, skills, and preferences. A major reason for this poor adoption is the generic, one-size-fits-all approach taken by designers of these interventions, without addressing the needs, skills, and preferences of disadvantaged groups. Participatory design approaches are effective for developing interventions that fit the needs of specific target groups; yet, very little is known about the practical implications of executing a participatory design project for and with people with LHL. Objective: This study aimed to demonstrate the application of participatory design activities specifically selected to fit the needs and skills of people with LHL and how these were manifested within an overarching eHealth design process. In addition, the study aims to present reflections and implications of these activities that could support future designers to engage people with LHL in their design processes. Methods: We used the design process of a smart asthma inhaler for people with asthma and LHL to demonstrate participatory design activities. The study was framed under 5 stages of design thinking: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test within 2 major iteration cycles. We integrated 3 participatory design activities deemed specifically appropriate for people with LHL: co-constructing stories, experience prototype exhibition, and video prototype evaluation. Results: Co-constructing stories was found to deepen the understanding of the participant’s motivation to use or not to use maintenance medication. This understanding informed and facilitated the subsequent development of diverse preliminary prototypes of possible interventions. Discussing these prototypes in the experience prototype exhibition helped provoke reactions, thoughts, and feelings about the interventions, and potential scenarios of use. Through the video prototype evaluation, we were able to clearly communicate the goal and functionality of the final version of our intervention and gather appropriate responses from our participants. Conclusions: This study demonstrates a participatory design approach for and with patients with asthma and LHL. We demonstrated that careful consideration and selection of activities can result in participants that are engaged and feel understood. This paper provides insight into the practical implications of participatory activities with people with LHL and supports and inspires future designers to engage with this disadvantaged target group.

Health disparities between socio-economic classes are growing. While eHealth has been proposed as a potential solution, it often disproportionately benefits people with a higher socio-economic position (SEP) thereby exacerbating health disparities. We aimed to develop an eHealth intervention that supports specifically people with a low SEP during their waiting period between hospital referral and start of cardiac rehabilitation (CR). We followed a participatory design process in which we used a variety of participatory and inclusive design tools and techniques to identify needs of the target group and develop the intervention. 15 cardiac patients with a low SEP participated in the development (n = 8) and evaluation (n = 7) of the intervention. We found that patients with a low SEP require certainty and guidance during their waiting period. To address this, healthcare providers guide them through this transitional phase using multimedia resources in the eHealth intervention. This includes introductions of the healthcare providers and information about their roles, peer experiences, practical tips and daily updates on the remaining waiting time. The evaluation yielded high scores on usability (4.4 out of 5), experience (4.1 out of 5) and perceived effect on certainty and guidance (4.0 out of 5). This study explored how eHealth can bridge gaps between hospitals and CR and between high and low SEP. It emphasizes the significance of utilizing participatory and inclusive approaches to develop feasible and acceptable eHealth interventions for those with low SEP. Currently, follow-up evaluative research is conducted to determine the proof-of-principle of the intervention.

Objective: eHealth interventions can improve the health outcomes of people with a low socioeconomic position (SEP) by promoting healthy lifestyle behaviours. However, developing and implementing these interventions among the target group can be challenging for professionals. To facilitate the uptake of effective interventions, this study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators anticipated or experienced by professionals in the development, reach, adherence, implementation and evaluation phases of eHealth interventions for people with a low SEP. Method: We used a Delphi method, consisting of two online questionnaires, to determine the consensus on barriers and facilitators anticipated or experienced during eHealth intervention phases and their importance. Participants provided open-ended responses in the first round and rated statements in the second round. The interquartile range was used to calculate consensus, and the (totally) agree ratings were used to assess importance. Results: Twenty-seven professionals participated in the first round, and 19 (70.4%) completed the second round. We found a consensus for 34.8% of the 46 items related to highly important rated barriers, such as the lack of involvement of low-SEP people in the development phase, lack of knowledge among professionals about reaching the target group, and lack of knowledge among lower-SEP groups about using eHealth interventions. Additionally, we identified a consensus for 80% of the 60 items related to highly important rated facilitators, such as rewarding people with a low SEP for their involvement in the development phase and connecting eHealth interventions to the everyday lives of lower-SEP groups to enhance reach. Conclusion: Our study provides valuable insights into the barriers and facilitators of developing eHealth interventions for people with a low SEP by examining current practices and offering recommendations for future improvements. Strengthening facilitators can help overcome these barriers. To achieve this, we recommend defining the roles of professionals and lower-SEP groups in each phase of eHealth intervention and disseminating this study's findings to professionals to optimize the impact of eHealth interventions for this group.

BACKGROUND: People with a low socioeconomic position (SEP) are less likely to benefit from eHealth interventions, exacerbating social health inequalities. Professionals developing eHealth interventions for this group face numerous challenges. A comprehensive guide to support these professionals in their work could mitigate these inequalities. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a web-based guide to support professionals in the development, adaptation, evaluation, and implementation of eHealth interventions for people with a low SEP. METHODS: This study consisted of 2 phases. The first phase involved a secondary analysis of 2 previous qualitative and quantitative studies. In this phase, we synthesized insights from the previous studies to develop the guide's content and information structure. In the second phase, we used a participatory design process. This process included iterative development and evaluation of the guide's design with 11 professionals who had experience with both eHealth and the target group. We used test versions (prototypes) and think-aloud testing combined with semistructured interviews and a questionnaire to identify design requirements and develop and adapt the guide accordingly. RESULTS: The secondary analysis resulted in a framework of recommendations for developing the guide, which was categorized under 5 themes: development, reach, adherence, evaluation, and implementation. The participatory design process resulted in 16 requirements on system, content, and service aspects for the design of the guide. For the system category, the guide was required to have an open navigation strategy leading to more specific information and short pages with visual elements. Content requirements included providing comprehensible information, scientific evidence, a user perspective, information on practical applications, and a personal and informal tone of voice. Service requirements involved improving suitability for different professionals, ensuring long-term viability, and a focus on implementation. Based on these requirements, we developed the final version of "the inclusive eHealth guide." CONCLUSIONS: The inclusive eHealth guide provides a practical, user-centric tool for professionals aiming to develop, adapt, evaluate, and implement eHealth interventions for people with a low SEP, with the aim of reducing health disparities in this population. Future research should investigate its suitability for different end-user goals, its external validity, its applicability in specific contexts, and its real-world impact on social health inequality.

Promoting health behaviors and preventing chronic diseases through a healthy lifestyle among those with a low socioeconomic status (SES) remain major challenges. eHealth interventions are a promising approach to change unhealthy behaviors in this target group. Objective: This review aims to identify key components, barriers, and facilitators in the development, reach, use, evaluation, and implementation of eHealth lifestyle interventions for people with a low SES. This review provides an overview for researchers and eHealth developers, and can assist in the development of eHealth interventions for people with a low SES. Methods: We performed a scoping review based on Arksey and O'Malley's framework. A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, using terms related to a combination of the following key constructs: eHealth, lifestyle, low SES, development, reach, use, evaluation, and implementation. There were no restrictions on the date of publication for articles retrieved upon searching the databases. Results: The search identified 1323 studies, of which 42 met our inclusion criteria. An update of the search led to the inclusion of 17 additional studies. eHealth lifestyle interventions for people with a low SES were often delivered via internet-based methods (eg, websites, email, Facebook, and smartphone apps) and offline methods, such as texting. A minority of the interventions combined eHealth lifestyle interventions with face-to-face or telephone coaching, or wearables (blended care). We identified the use of different behavioral components (eg, social support) and technological components (eg, multimedia) in eHealth lifestyle interventions. Facilitators in the development included iterative design, working with different disciplines, and resonating intervention content with users. Facilitators for intervention reach were use of a personal approach and social network, reminders, and self-monitoring. Nevertheless, barriers, such as technological challenges for developers and limited financial resources, may hinder intervention development. Furthermore, passive recruitment was a barrier to intervention reach. Technical difficulties and the use of self-monitoring devices were common barriers for users of eHealth interventions. Only limited data on barriers and facilitators for intervention implementation and evaluation were available. Conclusions: While we found large variations among studies regarding key intervention components, and barriers and facilitators, certain factors may be beneficial in building and using eHealth interventions and reaching people with a low SES. Barriers and facilitators offer promising elements that eHealth developers can use as a toolbox to connect eHealth with low SES individuals. Our findings suggest that one-size-fits-all eHealth interventions may be less suitable for people with a low SES. Future research should investigate how to customize eHealth lifestyle interventions to meet the needs of different low SES groups, and should identify the components that enhance their reach, use, and effectiveness.