Kwong Elizabeth, Cole Amy, Byrd Elizabeth, Sippo Dorothy, Yu Fei, Adapa Karthik, Shea Christopher M, Moore Carlton, Das Shiva, Mazur Lukasz
Carolina Health Informatics Program, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
School of Information and Library Science University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
PLOS Digit Health. 2025 Sep 16;4(9):e0001015. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0001015. eCollection 2025 Sep.
Quality checklists have demonstrated benefits in healthcare and other high-reliability organizations, but there remains a gap in the understanding of design approaches and levels of stakeholder engagement in the development of these quality checklists. This scoping review aims to synthesize the current knowledge base regarding the use of various design approaches for developing quality checklists in healthcare. Secondary objectives are to explore theoretical frameworks, design principles, stakeholder involvement and engagement, and characteristics of the design methods used for developing quality checklists. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews 2020 checklist. Seven databases (PubMed, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore) were searched for studies using a comprehensive search strategy developed in collaboration with a health sciences librarian. Search terms included "checklist" and "user-centered design" and their related terms. The IAP2 Spectrum of Participation Framework was used to categorize studies by level of stakeholder engagement during data extraction. Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Twenty-three distinct design methods were identified that were predominantly non-collaborative in nature (e.g., interviews, surveys, and other methods that involved only one researcher and one participant at a given time). Analysis of the levels of stakeholder engagement revealed a gap in studies that empowered their stakeholders in the quality checklist design process. Highly effective, clear, and standardized methodologies are needed for the design of quality checklists. Future work needs to explore how stakeholders can be empowered in the design process, and how different levels of stakeholder engagement might impact implementation outcomes.
质量检查表已在医疗保健和其他高可靠性组织中展现出益处，但在质量检查表开发过程中，对于设计方法以及利益相关者参与程度的理解仍存在差距。本范围综述旨在综合当前关于在医疗保健领域使用各种设计方法来制定质量检查表的知识基础。次要目标是探索理论框架、设计原则、利益相关者的参与和介入，以及用于制定质量检查表的设计方法的特点。该综述遵循了《系统评价优先报告条目2020》清单。使用与健康科学图书馆员合作制定的全面检索策略，在七个数据库（PubMed、APA PsycInfo、CINAHL、Embase、Scopus、ACM数字图书馆和IEEE Xplore）中检索相关研究。检索词包括“检查表”和“以用户为中心的设计”及其相关术语。在数据提取过程中，使用IAP2参与光谱框架按利益相关者参与程度对研究进行分类。二十九项研究符合本综述的纳入标准。确定了二十三种不同的设计方法，这些方法本质上主要是非协作性的（例如访谈、调查以及其他在特定时间仅涉及一名研究人员和一名参与者的方法）。对利益相关者参与程度的分析表明，在质量检查表设计过程中赋予利益相关者权力的研究存在差距。质量检查表的设计需要高效、清晰且标准化的方法。未来的工作需要探索如何在设计过程中赋予利益相关者权力，以及不同程度的利益相关者参与可能如何影响实施结果。
