Cargando…

Codesign approaches involving older adults in the development of electronic healthcare tools: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE: 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 par...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cole, Amy C, Adapa, Karthik, Khasawneh, Amro, Richardson, Daniel R, Mazur, Lukasz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9260797/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35793923
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058390
_version_ 1784742124012437504
author Cole, Amy C
Adapa, Karthik
Khasawneh, Amro
Richardson, Daniel R
Mazur, Lukasz
author_facet Cole, Amy C
Adapa, Karthik
Khasawneh, Amro
Richardson, Daniel R
Mazur, Lukasz
author_sort Cole, Amy C
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: 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. DESIGN: Systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews 2020 checklist. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases were searched for studies from January 2010 to March 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were studies employing codesign approaches to develop an EHTs, and the study population was aged 60 years and older. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021240013.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9260797
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92607972022-07-25 Codesign approaches involving older adults in the development of electronic healthcare tools: a systematic review Cole, Amy C Adapa, Karthik Khasawneh, Amro Richardson, Daniel R Mazur, Lukasz BMJ Open Health Informatics OBJECTIVE: 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. DESIGN: Systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews 2020 checklist. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases were searched for studies from January 2010 to March 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were studies employing codesign approaches to develop an EHTs, and the study population was aged 60 years and older. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021240013. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-07-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9260797/ /pubmed/35793923 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058390 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 Health Informatics
Cole, Amy C
Adapa, Karthik
Khasawneh, Amro
Richardson, Daniel R
Mazur, Lukasz
Codesign approaches involving older adults in the development of electronic healthcare tools: a systematic review
title Codesign approaches involving older adults in the development of electronic healthcare tools: a systematic review
title_full Codesign approaches involving older adults in the development of electronic healthcare tools: a systematic review
title_fullStr Codesign approaches involving older adults in the development of electronic healthcare tools: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Codesign approaches involving older adults in the development of electronic healthcare tools: a systematic review
title_short Codesign approaches involving older adults in the development of electronic healthcare tools: a systematic review
title_sort codesign approaches involving older adults in the development of electronic healthcare tools: a systematic review
topic Health Informatics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9260797/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35793923
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058390
work_keys_str_mv AT coleamyc codesignapproachesinvolvingolderadultsinthedevelopmentofelectronichealthcaretoolsasystematicreview
AT adapakarthik codesignapproachesinvolvingolderadultsinthedevelopmentofelectronichealthcaretoolsasystematicreview
AT khasawnehamro codesignapproachesinvolvingolderadultsinthedevelopmentofelectronichealthcaretoolsasystematicreview
AT richardsondanielr codesignapproachesinvolvingolderadultsinthedevelopmentofelectronichealthcaretoolsasystematicreview
AT mazurlukasz codesignapproachesinvolvingolderadultsinthedevelopmentofelectronichealthcaretoolsasystematicreview