Carolina Health Informatics Program, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
Division of Healthcare Engineering, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
BMJ Open. 2022 Jul 6;12(7):e058390. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058390.
The primary aim was to review and synthesise the current evidence of how older adults are involved in codesign approaches to develop electronic healthcare tools (EHTs). The secondary aim was to identify how the codesign approaches used mutual learning techniques to benefit older adult participants.
Systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews 2020 checklist.
PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases were searched for studies from January 2010 to March 2021.
Inclusion criteria were studies employing codesign approaches to develop an EHTs, and the study population was aged 60 years and older.
Data were extracted for analysis and risk of bias. We evaluated the quality of studies using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center approach.
Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. All studies used at least two involvement processes, with interviews and prototypes used most frequently. Through cross-classification, we found an increased utilisation of functional prototypes in studies reaching the 'empower' level of participation and found that studies which benefitted from mutual learning had a higher utilisation of specific involvement processes such as focus groups and functional prototyping.
We found gaps to support which involvement processes, participation levels and learning models should be employed when codesigning with older adults. This is important because higher levels of participation may increase the user's knowledge of technology, enhance learning and empower participants. To ensure studies optimise participation and learning of older adults when developing EHTs, there is a need to place more emphasis on the approaches promoting mutual learning.
CRD42021240013.
本研究旨在综述和综合当前关于老年人如何参与电子医疗工具（EHT）开发的共同设计方法的证据。次要目的是确定共同设计方法如何使用相互学习技术使老年参与者受益。
遵循 2020 年系统评价首选报告项目清单进行系统评价。
从 2010 年 1 月至 2021 年 3 月，在 PubMed、Embase 和 Scopus 数据库中搜索研究。
纳入标准为采用共同设计方法开发 EHT 的研究，且研究人群年龄在 60 岁及以上。
提取数据进行分析和偏倚风险评估。我们使用医疗保健研究与质量机构的循证实践中心方法评估研究质量。
共有 25 项研究符合本综述的纳入标准。所有研究都至少使用了两种参与过程，访谈和原型最常使用。通过交叉分类，我们发现，在达到“赋权”参与水平的研究中，功能原型的使用增加了，并且发现从相互学习中受益的研究更频繁地使用特定的参与过程，如焦点小组和功能原型制作。
我们发现支持共同设计时应采用哪些参与过程、参与水平和学习模式的差距。这一点很重要，因为更高的参与水平可能会增加用户对技术的了解，增强学习能力并赋予参与者权力。为了确保在开发 EHT 时优化老年人的参与和学习，需要更加重视促进相互学习的方法。
PROSPERO 注册号：CRD42021240013。
