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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zipfel, Nina, Horreh, Bedra, Hulshof, Carel T J, de Boer, Angela G E M, van der Burg-Vermeulen, Sylvia J
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