Fig 1.
Graphical representation of the methodological approach to creating, evaluating, and updating the DONE framework.
The numbers of workgroup members provided involved in each phase are minimum numbers. Actual numbers are likely to be higher since, in some cases, several workgroup members submitted one joint response.
Table 1.
Scientific backgrounds and countries represented within the workgroup members and external experts participating in the creation, evaluation and updating of the DONE framework.
Fig 2.
Taxonomy of outcomes of the DONE framework.
Note: figure prepared using MindMeister.com.
Fig 3.
DONE framework categorization structure.
Table 2.
Overview of leaf-categories with explanations and examples of determinants.
Fig 4.
Average overall priority for research across determinants of the 51 leaf-categories in the DONE framework across age groups (children / adults) and across rater type (workgroup member / external expert).
Fig 5.
Average scores across determinants of the 51 leaf-categories in the DONE framework on modifiability, relationship strength, and population-level effect across age groups and across rater type.
Sub-categories in the top-right corner that have larger circles can be considered as potentially important / influential leaf-categories as these sub-categories score highly on all three rating dimensions.
Table 3.
Percentages of average (across workgroup members and external experts) determinant ratings falling into the categories low, moderate, substantial, and strong.
Fig 6.
Storyboard detailing the interactive possibilities of the DONE framework using a concrete example of a potential research question.