A rapid review for developing a co-design framework for a pediatric surgical communication application

BACKGROUND

The exponential growth in the use of mobile health (mHealth) applications in patient care has highlighted the importance of understanding end-users' needs for successful interventions, achievable through the process of co-design. This review aims to summarize previously published uses of co-design in mHealth applications. It will inform the development of a local mHealth tool in pediatric surgery.

METHODS

The rapid review was conducted following Cochrane Rapid Review guidelines. We searched four databases from inception until August 2021 for collaborative design in mHealth apps. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts using Rayyan, with a third reviewer resolving any conflicts. Studies were excluded if they were non-empirical or in other languages than English.

RESULTS

Out of 984 records screened, 175 were included for full-text screening, and 27 met all eligibility criteria. The purpose of the studies related to care support, communication, self-management or information management. All interventions involved their target audience in the co-design process, and 85% included healthcare professionals for expert opinion. Stakeholder participation was solicited via interviews, surveys, focus groups, design sessions, and prototype evaluation. To initiate the process, 15 studies included needs identification, 8 did background research, and 7 performed literature reviews.

CONCLUSION

Co-design has a positive impact on mHealth development, research processes and outcomes. Its success relies on a clearly identified framework of terminology, activities involved, and evaluation techniques. The findings of this review will be integrated into a novel co-design framework, which will be used to inform the development of a pediatric surgery mHealth application.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

This review uses manuscripts that are rated level III-V.

Development of a decision guide to support the elderly in decision making about location of care: an iterative, user-centered design

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

For the elderly to get the care and services they need, they may need to make the difficult decision about staying in their home or moving to another home. Many other people may be involved in their care too (friends, family and healthcare providers), and can support them in making the decision. We asked informal caregivers of elderly people to help us develop a decision guide to support them and their loved ones in making this decision. This guide will be used by health providers in home care who are trained to help people make decisions. The guide is in French and English. To design and test this decision guide we involved elderly people, their caregivers and health administrators. We first asked them what they needed for making the decision, and then designed a first version of the guide. Then we asked them to look at it and give feedback, which was used to make the final version. We then used scientific criteria to check its content and the language used. The final decision guide was acceptable to the caregivers, their elderly loved ones, and the health administrators. The guide is currently being evaluated in a large research project with home care teams in the province of Quebec.

ABSTRACT

Background As they grow older, many elderly people are faced with the difficult and preference-sensitive decision about staying in their home or moving to a residence better adapted to their evolving care needs. We aimed to develop an English and French decision aid (DA) for elderly people facing this decision, and to involve end-users in all phases of the development process. Methods A three-cycle design with involvement of end-users in Quebec. End-users were elderly people (n = 4) caregivers of the elderly (n = 5), health administrators involved in home-care service delivery or policy (n = 6) and an interprofessional research team (n = 19). Cycle 1: Decisional needs assessment and development of the first prototype based on existing tools and input from end-users; overview of reviews examining the impact of location of care on elderly people's health outcomes. Cycle 2: Usability testing with end-users, adaptation of prototype. Cycle 3: Refinement of the prototype with a linguist, graphic designer and end-users. The final prototype underwent readability testing and an International Patient Decision Aids (IPDAS) criteria compatibility assessment to verify minimal requirements for decision aids and was tested for usability by the elderly. ResultsCycle 1: We used the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide to design a first prototype. As the overview of reviews did not find definitive evidence regarding optimal locations of care for elderly people, we were not able to add evidence-based advantages and disadvantages to the guide. Cycle 2: Overall, the caregivers and health administrators who evaluated the prototype (n = 10) were positive. In response to their suggestions, we deleted some elements (overview of pros, cons, and consequences of the options) that were necessary to qualify the tool as a DA and renamed it a "decision guide". Cycle 3: We developed French and English versions of the guide, readable at a primary school level. The elderly judged the guide as acceptable. Conclusion We developed a decision guide to support elderly people and their caregivers in decision making about location of care. This paper is one of few to report on a fully collaborative approach to decision guide development that involves end-users at every stage (caregivers and health administrators early on, the frail elderly in the final stages). The guide is currently being evaluated in a cluster randomized trial. Trial registration: NCT02244359.