{"title":"Examining Challenges to Co-Design Digital Health Interventions With End Users: Systematic Review.","authors":"Anthony Duffy, Nazanin Boroumandzad, Alfredo Lopez Sherman, Gregory Christie, Indira Riadi, Sylvain Moreno","doi":"10.2196/50178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Digital health interventions (DHIs) are changing the dynamic of health care by providing personalized, private, and instantaneous solutions to end users. However, the explosion of digital health has been fraught with challenges. The approach to co-design with end users varies across a diverse domain of stakeholders, often resulting in siloed approaches with no clear consensus. The concept of validating user experiences contrasts greatly between digital stakeholders (ie, user experience and retention) and health stakeholders (ie, safety and efficacy). Several methodologies and frameworks are being implemented to address this challenge to varying degrees of success.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to broadly examine the advancements and challenges to co-design DHIs with end users over the last decade. This task was undertaken to identify the key problem areas at the domain level, with the ultimate goal of creating recommendations for better approaches to co-design DHIs with end users.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic search of key databases for co-design studies involving end users in DHIs. Searches were divided into 3 relevant streams: health behavior, user experience, and digital methodologies and frameworks. The eligibility criteria were guided by the PerSPEcTiF framework and the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist. In line with this framework, studies were included in this review that (1) address research on DHIs; (2) focus on interaction and co-design with end users; (3) explain results such that uptake, effectiveness, satisfaction, and health outcomes are discernible, positively or negatively; and (4) describe actionable procedures for better DHI design. The search was conducted in a diverse group of 6 bibliographical databases from January 2015 to May 2024: PsycINFO, PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, CINAHL, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore, and Scopus. From the 13,961 studies initially screened for titles and abstracts, 489 (3.6%) were eligible for a full-text screening, of which 171 (1.2%) studies matched the inclusion criteria and were included in a qualitative synthesis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 171 studies analyzed across 52 journals, we found 5 different research approaches, spanning 8 different digital health solution types and 5 different design methodologies. These studies identified several core themes when co-designing with end users: advancements, which included participatory co-design; challenges, which included participatory co-design, environment and context, testing, and cost and scale; and gaps, which included a pragmatic hybridized framework and industry implementability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This research supports a pragmatic shift toward using mixed methods approaches at scale, methods that are primed to take advantage of the emerging big data era of digital health co-design. This organic outlook should blend the vision of digital health co-designers with the pragmatism of Agile design methodology and the rigor of health care metrics.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42021238164; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021238164.</p><p><strong>International registered report identifier (irrid): </strong>RR2-10.2196/28083.</p>","PeriodicalId":16337,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","volume":"27 ","pages":"e50178"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11953610/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/50178","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Digital health interventions (DHIs) are changing the dynamic of health care by providing personalized, private, and instantaneous solutions to end users. However, the explosion of digital health has been fraught with challenges. The approach to co-design with end users varies across a diverse domain of stakeholders, often resulting in siloed approaches with no clear consensus. The concept of validating user experiences contrasts greatly between digital stakeholders (ie, user experience and retention) and health stakeholders (ie, safety and efficacy). Several methodologies and frameworks are being implemented to address this challenge to varying degrees of success.
Objective: We aimed to broadly examine the advancements and challenges to co-design DHIs with end users over the last decade. This task was undertaken to identify the key problem areas at the domain level, with the ultimate goal of creating recommendations for better approaches to co-design DHIs with end users.
Methods: We conducted a systematic search of key databases for co-design studies involving end users in DHIs. Searches were divided into 3 relevant streams: health behavior, user experience, and digital methodologies and frameworks. The eligibility criteria were guided by the PerSPEcTiF framework and the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist. In line with this framework, studies were included in this review that (1) address research on DHIs; (2) focus on interaction and co-design with end users; (3) explain results such that uptake, effectiveness, satisfaction, and health outcomes are discernible, positively or negatively; and (4) describe actionable procedures for better DHI design. The search was conducted in a diverse group of 6 bibliographical databases from January 2015 to May 2024: PsycINFO, PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, CINAHL, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore, and Scopus. From the 13,961 studies initially screened for titles and abstracts, 489 (3.6%) were eligible for a full-text screening, of which 171 (1.2%) studies matched the inclusion criteria and were included in a qualitative synthesis.
Results: Of the 171 studies analyzed across 52 journals, we found 5 different research approaches, spanning 8 different digital health solution types and 5 different design methodologies. These studies identified several core themes when co-designing with end users: advancements, which included participatory co-design; challenges, which included participatory co-design, environment and context, testing, and cost and scale; and gaps, which included a pragmatic hybridized framework and industry implementability.
Conclusions: This research supports a pragmatic shift toward using mixed methods approaches at scale, methods that are primed to take advantage of the emerging big data era of digital health co-design. This organic outlook should blend the vision of digital health co-designers with the pragmatism of Agile design methodology and the rigor of health care metrics.
背景:数字健康干预(DHIs)通过向最终用户提供个性化、私人和即时的解决方案,正在改变医疗保健的动态。然而,数字医疗的爆炸式增长充满了挑战。与最终用户共同设计的方法因涉众的不同领域而异,常常导致没有明确共识的孤立方法。验证用户体验的概念在数字利益攸关方(即用户体验和留存)和健康利益攸关方(即安全性和有效性)之间存在巨大差异。正在实施若干方法和框架来应对这一挑战,并取得了不同程度的成功。目的:我们旨在广泛研究过去十年来与最终用户共同设计DHIs的进展和挑战。执行此任务是为了确定领域级别的关键问题领域,其最终目标是为与最终用户共同设计DHIs的更好方法提供建议。方法:我们对涉及DHIs终端用户的协同设计研究的关键数据库进行了系统搜索。搜索分为三个相关流:健康行为、用户体验和数字方法和框架。入选标准由PerSPEcTiF框架和PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目)清单指导。根据这一框架,本综述纳入了以下研究:(1)涉及DHIs的研究;(2)注重与终端用户的交互和协同设计;(3)解释结果,使吸收、有效性、满意度和健康结果是可识别的,无论是积极的还是消极的;(4)描述改善DHI设计的可操作程序。检索从2015年1月到2024年5月在6个不同的书目数据库中进行:PsycINFO, PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, CINAHL, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore和Scopus。在最初筛选标题和摘要的13961项研究中,489项(3.6%)研究符合全文筛选,其中171项(1.2%)研究符合纳入标准,并被纳入定性综合。结果:在52种期刊的171项研究中,我们发现了5种不同的研究方法,涵盖8种不同的数字健康解决方案类型和5种不同的设计方法。这些研究确定了与最终用户共同设计时的几个核心主题:进步,包括参与式共同设计;挑战包括参与式共同设计、环境和背景、测试、成本和规模;和差距,其中包括一个实用的混合框架和行业可实施性。结论:本研究支持向大规模使用混合方法方法的务实转变,这些方法已准备好利用新兴的数字健康协同设计的大数据时代。这种有机的前景应该将数字健康共同设计师的愿景与敏捷设计方法的实用主义和医疗保健指标的严谨性相结合。试验注册:PROSPERO CRD42021238164;https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021238164.International注册报告标识符(irrid): RR2-10.2196/28083。
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) is a highly respected publication in the field of health informatics and health services. With a founding date in 1999, JMIR has been a pioneer in the field for over two decades.
As a leader in the industry, the journal focuses on digital health, data science, health informatics, and emerging technologies for health, medicine, and biomedical research. It is recognized as a top publication in these disciplines, ranking in the first quartile (Q1) by Impact Factor.
Notably, JMIR holds the prestigious position of being ranked #1 on Google Scholar within the "Medical Informatics" discipline.