4.1 Review

Co-Design for People-Centred Care Digital Solutions: A Literature Review

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTEGRATED CARE
Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

UBIQUITY PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.5334/ijic.5573

Keywords

co-design; people-centred care; digital solution; patients; health practitioners; managers

Funding

  1. European Union

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that a wide range of activities were utilized in previous research using co-design methods for the deployment of health digital solutions, with most studies combining activities and/or involving mixed target groups.
Introduction: The implementation of people-centred care requires strategies that respond to local conditions and contexts, with the participation of local stakeholders in collaborative approaches such as co-design. Within this framework, the authors performed a literature review to identify the most implemented practices in health and social care services for co-designing digital solutions. Methods: The literature review was conducted following five steps: (i) Definition of the Keywords and their relations; (ii) Definition of the selection criteria; (iii) Search in PubMed; (iv) Selection of papers; and (v) Analysis of the selected papers. Results: 20 papers addressed to co-design health digital solutions with stakeholders were analysed in terms of the activities implemented and participants involved. Discussion: Previous studies using co-design methods for the deployment of health digital solutions employed a wide range of activities, most of them combining activities and/or mixed target groups. Conclusion: Co-design is the key to deliver people-centred care as it allows to involve stakeholders in the development of health digital solutions. Implementing one or more of the co-design methods identified in this literature review should be considered to better address the needs and specific projects and target groups.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available