Duffy Anthony, Boroumandzad Nazanin, Sherman Alfredo Lopez, Christie Gregory, Riadi Indira, Moreno Sylvain
School of Interactive Arts & Technology, Simon Fraser University, Surrey, BC, Canada.
Meta, Seattle, WA, United States.
J Med Internet Res. 2025 Mar 14;27:e50178. doi: 10.2196/50178.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
PROSPERO CRD42021238164; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021238164.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/28083.
数字健康干预措施(DHIs)通过为终端用户提供个性化、私密且即时的解决方案,正在改变医疗保健的格局。然而,数字健康的迅猛发展充满了挑战。与终端用户共同设计的方法在不同领域的利益相关者中各不相同,常常导致各自为政的方法,且没有明确的共识。在数字利益相关者(即用户体验和留存率)与健康利益相关者(即安全性和有效性)之间,验证用户体验的概念差异极大。为应对这一挑战,人们正在实施多种方法和框架,但取得的成功程度各异。
我们旨在广泛审视过去十年中与终端用户共同设计数字健康干预措施的进展与挑战。开展这项任务是为了确定领域层面的关键问题领域,最终目标是为与终端用户共同设计数字健康干预措施的更好方法提出建议。
我们对关键数据库进行了系统检索,以查找涉及数字健康干预措施中终端用户的共同设计研究。检索分为3个相关类别:健康行为、用户体验以及数字方法和框架。纳入标准以PerSPEcTiF框架和PRISMA(系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目)清单为指导。根据该框架,纳入本综述的研究需满足以下条件:(1)涉及数字健康干预措施的研究;(2)专注于与终端用户的互动和共同设计;(3)解释结果,以便能够辨别吸收情况、有效性、满意度和健康结果的正负情况;(4)描述改进数字健康干预措施设计的可操作程序。检索于2015年1月至2024年5月在6个不同的文献数据库中进行:PsycINFO、PubMed(MEDLINE)、科学引文索引、护理学与健康领域数据库、电气和电子工程师协会Xplore以及Scopus。从最初筛选标题和摘要的13961项研究中,489项(3.6%)符合全文筛选条件,其中171项(1.2%)研究符合纳入标准并被纳入定性综合分析。
在分析的横跨52种期刊的171项研究中,我们发现了5种不同的研究方法,涵盖了八类不同的数字健康解决方案类型和5种不同的设计方法。这些研究在与终端用户共同设计时确定了几个核心主题:进展,包括参与式共同设计;挑战,包括参与式共同设计、环境与背景、测试以及成本和规模;差距,包括务实的混合框架和行业可实施性。
本研究支持向大规模使用混合方法的务实转变,这些方法准备好在数字健康共同设计的新兴大数据时代发挥优势。这种有机的观点应将数字健康共同设计者的愿景与敏捷设计方法的务实性以及医疗保健指标的严谨性相结合。
PROSPERO CRD42021238164;https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021238164。
国际注册报告识别号(IRRID):RR2 - 10.2196/28083。