case_images: PMC9768029_01
case_images: PMC9768029_02
case_images: PMC9768029_03
case_images: PMC9768029_04
case_images: PMC9768029_05
case_images: PMC9768029_06
case_images: PMC9768029_07
case_images: PMC9768029_08
case_images: PMC9768029_09
case_images: PMC9768029_10
case_images: PMC9768029_11
case_images: PMC9768029_12
case_images: PMC9768029_13
case_images: PMC9768029_14
case_images: PMC9768029_15
case_images: PMC9768029_16
case_images: Level of participation of each team role per PAR phase per pilot initiative.
case_images: fdgth-04-1006447-g002.jpg
case_images: PMC9768029_16_fdgth-04-1006447-g002.jpg
case_images: F2
case_images: An overview of Figure 2 reveals that the participation level according to each group was Developers (33.1%), Researchers (31.5%), Physicians (17.1%), Nurses (15.0%), and Patients (3.2%).
case_images: Diagram of the features of the three previously developed pilot initiatives. Each category is represented with a letter and a color: must-have - Mo (blue), should-have - S (green), could-have Co (yellow), and will not have this time - W (red).
case_images: fdgth-04-1006447-g003.jpg
case_images: PMC9768029_16_fdgth-04-1006447-g003.jpg
case_images: F3
case_images: Figure 3 illustrates the feature prioritization for development.
case_images: Different contributions according to PAR team role.
case_images: fdgth-04-1006447-g004.jpg
case_images: PMC9768029_16_fdgth-04-1006447-g004.jpg
case_images: F4
case_images: Distribution of meetings per phase.
case_images: fdgth-04-1006447-g005.jpg
case_images: PMC9768029_16_fdgth-04-1006447-g005.jpg
case_images: F5
case_images: The approach involved two action-reflection cycles illustrated in Figure 5.