Cargando…
The relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations: an integrative review
OBJECTIVES: The concept of living labs as a research method to enhance participation of end-users in the development and implementation process of an innovation, gained increasing attention over the past decade. A living lab can be characterised by five key components: user-centric, cocreation, real...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9240880/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35768105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058630 |
_version_ | 1784737663559925760 |
---|---|
author | Zipfel, Nina Horreh, Bedra Hulshof, Carel T J de Boer, Angela G E M van der Burg-Vermeulen, Sylvia J |
author_facet | Zipfel, Nina Horreh, Bedra Hulshof, Carel T J de Boer, Angela G E M van der Burg-Vermeulen, Sylvia J |
author_sort | Zipfel, Nina |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: The concept of living labs as a research method to enhance participation of end-users in the development and implementation process of an innovation, gained increasing attention over the past decade. A living lab can be characterised by five key components: user-centric, cocreation, real-life context, test innovation and open innovation. The purpose of this integrative literature review was to summarise the literature on the relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations. METHODS: An integrative literature review searching PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cinahl databases between January 2000 and December 2019. Studies were included when a living lab approach was used to implement innovations in healthcare and implementation outcomes were reported. Included studies evaluated at least one of the following implementation outcomes: acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration or sustainability. Quality was assessed based on a tool developed by Hawker et al. RESULTS: Of the 1173 retrieved articles, 30 studies were included of which 11 of high quality. Most studies involved a combination of patients/public (N=23) and providers (N=17) as key stakeholders in the living lab approach. Living lab components were mostly applied in the development phase of innovations (N=21). The majority of studies reported on achievement of acceptability (N=22) and feasibility (N=17) in terms of implementation outcomes. A broader spectrum of implementation outcomes was only evaluated in one study. We found that in particular six success factors were mentioned for the added-value of using living lab components for healthcare innovations: leadership, involvement, timing, openness, organisational support and ownership. CONCLUSIONS: The living lab approach showed to contribute to successful implementation outcomes. This integrative review suggests that using a living lab approach fosters collaboration and participation in the development and implementation of new healthcare innovations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020166895. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9240880 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92408802022-07-20 The relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations: an integrative review Zipfel, Nina Horreh, Bedra Hulshof, Carel T J de Boer, Angela G E M van der Burg-Vermeulen, Sylvia J BMJ Open Public Health OBJECTIVES: The concept of living labs as a research method to enhance participation of end-users in the development and implementation process of an innovation, gained increasing attention over the past decade. A living lab can be characterised by five key components: user-centric, cocreation, real-life context, test innovation and open innovation. The purpose of this integrative literature review was to summarise the literature on the relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations. METHODS: An integrative literature review searching PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cinahl databases between January 2000 and December 2019. Studies were included when a living lab approach was used to implement innovations in healthcare and implementation outcomes were reported. Included studies evaluated at least one of the following implementation outcomes: acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration or sustainability. Quality was assessed based on a tool developed by Hawker et al. RESULTS: Of the 1173 retrieved articles, 30 studies were included of which 11 of high quality. Most studies involved a combination of patients/public (N=23) and providers (N=17) as key stakeholders in the living lab approach. Living lab components were mostly applied in the development phase of innovations (N=21). The majority of studies reported on achievement of acceptability (N=22) and feasibility (N=17) in terms of implementation outcomes. A broader spectrum of implementation outcomes was only evaluated in one study. We found that in particular six success factors were mentioned for the added-value of using living lab components for healthcare innovations: leadership, involvement, timing, openness, organisational support and ownership. CONCLUSIONS: The living lab approach showed to contribute to successful implementation outcomes. This integrative review suggests that using a living lab approach fosters collaboration and participation in the development and implementation of new healthcare innovations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020166895. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-06-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9240880/ /pubmed/35768105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058630 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Public Health Zipfel, Nina Horreh, Bedra Hulshof, Carel T J de Boer, Angela G E M van der Burg-Vermeulen, Sylvia J The relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations: an integrative review |
title | The relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations: an integrative review |
title_full | The relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations: an integrative review |
title_fullStr | The relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations: an integrative review |
title_full_unstemmed | The relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations: an integrative review |
title_short | The relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations: an integrative review |
title_sort | relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations: an integrative review |
topic | Public Health |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9240880/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35768105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058630 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zipfelnina therelationshipbetweenthelivinglabapproachandsuccessfulimplementationofhealthcareinnovationsanintegrativereview AT horrehbedra therelationshipbetweenthelivinglabapproachandsuccessfulimplementationofhealthcareinnovationsanintegrativereview AT hulshofcareltj therelationshipbetweenthelivinglabapproachandsuccessfulimplementationofhealthcareinnovationsanintegrativereview AT deboerangelagem therelationshipbetweenthelivinglabapproachandsuccessfulimplementationofhealthcareinnovationsanintegrativereview AT vanderburgvermeulensylviaj therelationshipbetweenthelivinglabapproachandsuccessfulimplementationofhealthcareinnovationsanintegrativereview AT zipfelnina relationshipbetweenthelivinglabapproachandsuccessfulimplementationofhealthcareinnovationsanintegrativereview AT horrehbedra relationshipbetweenthelivinglabapproachandsuccessfulimplementationofhealthcareinnovationsanintegrativereview AT hulshofcareltj relationshipbetweenthelivinglabapproachandsuccessfulimplementationofhealthcareinnovationsanintegrativereview AT deboerangelagem relationshipbetweenthelivinglabapproachandsuccessfulimplementationofhealthcareinnovationsanintegrativereview AT vanderburgvermeulensylviaj relationshipbetweenthelivinglabapproachandsuccessfulimplementationofhealthcareinnovationsanintegrativereview |