Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33648588›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2021

A generative co-design framework for healthcare innovation: development and application of an end-user engagement framework.

M Bird, M McGillion, E M Chambers, J Dix, C J Fajardo, M Gilmour, K Levesque, A Lim, S Mierdel, C Ouellette and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 163 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
163citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
43.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

163 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 272 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Meaningful patient and public involvement in digital health innovation, implementation and evaluation: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The Many Faces of Engagement: A Scoping Review of Paediatric Patient and Family Engagement in Clinical Care, Education and Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

103 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

M BirdSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada. birdm3@mcmaster.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2188-0767
M McGillionSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1343-7012
E M ChambersDigiComp Kids, Hamilton, Canada.
J DixVON Canada, 2315 St. Laurent Blvd, Suite 100, Ottawa, ON, K1G 4J8, Canada.
C J FajardoOntario Health (OTN), 438 University Avenue, Suite 200, Toronto, ON, M5G 2K8, Canada.
M GilmourD'Youville College, Patricia H. Garman School of Nursing, Buffalo, USA.
K LevesqueSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.
A LimDepartment of Pediatrics, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.
S MierdelOntario Health (OTN), 438 University Avenue, Suite 200, Toronto, ON, M5G 2K8, Canada.
C OuelletteSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3242-6164
A N PolanskiMcMaster University, 1280 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0485-1884
S V ReaumeDigiComp Kids, Hamilton, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7328-7688
C WhitmoreSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3974-4854
N CarterSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4506-7167
McMaster University · CAD'Youville College · USUniversity of Waterloo · CAVictorian Order of Nurses · CA

Funding

CIHR Doctoral Research Award
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Continual improvements to health systems, products, and services are necessary for improvements in health. However, many of these improvements are not incorporated into everyday practice. When designing new health systems, products, and services, involving members of the healthcare community and the public with personal healthcare experience can help to make sure that improvements will be useful and relevant to others like them. Methods Together with healthcare workers and family members with healthcare experience, we developed and applied a step-by-step guide to involving those with personal experience in the design of health system improvements. Results Our guide has three phases- 'Pre-Design', 'Co-Design', and 'Post-Design'. This paper describes each of these phases and illustrates how we applied them to our own project, which is to use virtual healthcare methods to improve care for children with chronic healthcare conditions and their families. In our own work, we found that healthcare workers and family members with personal healthcare experiences were able to use their knowledge and creativity to help us imagine how to improve care for children with chronic healthcare conditions and their families. We have created action items from these family member- and healthcare worker-identified needs, which we will use to shape our virtual healthcare system. Conclusions This paper may be useful for those seeking to involve members of the healthcare community and the public in the creation of better healthcare systems, products, and services. Background Challenges with the adoption, scale, and spread of health innovations represent significant gaps in the evidence-to-practice cycle. In the health innovation design process, a lack of attention paid to the needs of end-users, and subsequent tailoring of innovations to meet these needs, is a possible reason for this deficit. In the creative field of health innovation, which includes the design of healthcare products, systems (governance and organization mechanisms), and services (delivery mechanisms), a framework for both soliciting the needs of end-users and translating these needs into the design of health innovations is needed. Methods To address this gap, our team developed and applied a seven-step methodological framework, called A Generative Co-Design Framework for Healthcare Innovation. This framework was developed by an interdisciplinary team that included patient partners. Results This manuscript contributes a framework and applied exemplar for those seeking to engage end-users in the creative process of healthcare innovation. Through the stages of 'Pre-Design', 'Co-Design', and 'Post-Design', we were able to harness the creative insights of end-users, drawing on their experiences to shape a future state of care. Using an expository example of our own work, the DigiComp Kids project, we illustrate the application of each stage of the Framework. Conclusions A Generative Co-Design Framework for Healthcare Innovation provides healthcare innovators, applied health science researchers, clinicians, and quality improvement specialists with a guide to eliciting and incorporating the viewpoints of end-users while distilling practical considerations for healthcare innovation and design.

Indexed as

Co-designEnd-user engagementHealthcare innovationPatient and public involvement

Identifiers

PMID33648588
PMCPMC7923456
OpenAlexW3134990841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.