Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Dec 6;9(12):e28102. doi: 10.2196/28102.
Human-centered design (HCD) approaches to health care strive to support the development of innovative, effective, and person-centered solutions for health care. Although their use is increasing, there is no integral overview describing the details of HCD methods in health innovations.
This review aims to explore the current practices of HCD approaches for the development of health innovations, with the aim of providing an overview of the applied methods for participatory and HCD processes and highlighting their shortcomings for further research.
A narrative review of health research was conducted based on systematic electronic searches in the PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Sociological Abstracts (2000-2020) databases using keywords related to human-centered design, design thinking (DT), and user-centered design (UCD). Abstracts and full-text articles were screened by 2 reviewers independently based on predefined inclusion criteria. Data extraction focused on the methodology used throughout the research process, the choice of methods in different phases of the innovation cycle, and the level of engagement of end users.
This review summarizes the application of HCD practices across various areas of health innovation. All approaches prioritized the user's needs and the participatory and iterative nature of the design process. The design processes comprised several design cycles during which multiple qualitative and quantitative methods were used in combination with specific design methods. HCD- and DT-based research primarily targeted understanding the research context and defining the problem, whereas UCD-based work focused mainly on the direct generation of solutions. Although UCD approaches involved end users primarily as testers and informants, HCD and DT approaches involved end users most often as design partners.
We have provided an overview of the currently applied methodologies and HCD guidelines to assist health care professionals and design researchers in their methodological choices. HCD-based techniques are challenging to evaluate using traditional biomedical research methods. Previously proposed reporting guidelines are a step forward but would require a level of detail that is incompatible with the current publishing landscape. Hence, further development is needed in this area. Special focus should be placed on the congruence between the chosen methods, design strategy, and achievable outcomes. Furthermore, power dimensions, agency, and intersectionality need to be considered in co-design sessions with multiple stakeholders, especially when including vulnerable groups.
以人为中心的设计（HCD）方法在医疗保健中努力支持创新、有效和以个人为中心的医疗保健解决方案的发展。尽管它们的使用正在增加，但没有综合概述描述 HCD 方法在健康创新中的细节。
本综述旨在探讨 HCD 方法在健康创新开发中的当前实践，旨在为参与式和 HCD 过程的应用方法提供概述，并强调其不足之处，以进一步研究。
基于系统电子检索，在 PubMed、CINAHL、Embase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、PsycINFO 和 Sociological Abstracts（2000-2020）数据库中使用与以人为中心的设计、设计思维（DT）和用户为中心的设计（UCD）相关的关键词进行健康研究的叙述性综述。根据预先确定的纳入标准，由 2 名审查员独立筛选摘要和全文文章。数据提取重点关注整个研究过程中使用的方法、创新周期不同阶段的方法选择以及最终用户的参与程度。
本综述总结了 HCD 实践在健康创新各个领域的应用。所有方法都优先考虑用户的需求以及设计过程的参与性和迭代性质。设计过程包括几个设计周期，在此期间，结合特定的设计方法，使用了多种定性和定量方法。基于 HCD 和 DT 的研究主要针对理解研究背景和定义问题，而基于 UCD 的工作主要侧重于直接生成解决方案。尽管 UCD 方法主要将最终用户作为测试人员和信息提供者，但 HCD 和 DT 方法通常将最终用户作为设计合作伙伴。
我们提供了目前应用的方法学和 HCD 指南的概述，以帮助医疗保健专业人员和设计研究人员做出方法选择。基于 HCD 的技术很难使用传统的生物医学研究方法进行评估。以前提出的报告指南是向前迈出的一步，但需要详细程度与当前的出版格局不兼容。因此，这方面需要进一步发展。特别需要关注所选方法、设计策略和可实现结果之间的一致性。此外，在与多个利益相关者共同设计会议中，特别是在纳入弱势群体时，需要考虑权力维度、代理和交叉性。
