ReviewBMJ open2022
The relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations: an integrative review.
Review in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Identifying Facilitators and Obstacles in Piloting Dementia Initiatives Within a Living Lab Approach: Systematic Review.JMIR aging · 2026Pooled it
- Implementation of a complex intervention to improve interprofessional collaboration in long-term care: results of the mixed-methods process evaluation within the interprof ACT trial.BMC health services research · 2026Trial
- BRIDGe recruitment strategies for frail older adults in intervention trials: lessons learned from the ACTIVE-AGE@home trial.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Trial
- Thriving in the City: An Urban Living Lab to Facilitate Recovery From Psychosis.Early intervention in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Development of a hybrid manikin for extra-uterine life support technology innovation.BMC biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Interventions and Implementation Strategies for Preventing Occupational Contact Dermatitis: A Scoping Review.Contact dermatitis · 2026Article
- AI-enabled Living Labs: Accelerating innovation in multiple sclerosis care and research.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2026Review
- Identifying sport-for-development outcome measures suitable for a living-lab setting: a scoping review.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Realization of a Family Systems Care Unit: A Real-Life Laboratory for Clinical Practice, Education, and Research at a Swiss University of Applied Sciences.Journal of family nursing · 2026Article
- A Virtual Living Lab Platform Codeveloped for Mental Health in Youth-Onset Type 2 Diabetes (BrightSpark Care Lab): Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Living lab approaches in rural healthcare: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Efficacy of Stromal Vascular Fraction Treatment for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Single-Arm Experimental Trial.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Driving health transformation: big pharma's innovation labs revolution.Health research policy and systems · 2025Review
- Preliminary User-Centred Evaluation of a Bio-Cooperative Robotic Platform for Cognitive Rehabilitation in Parkinson's Disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment: Insights from a Focus Group and Living Lab in the OPERA Project.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Engagement of People With Lived Experience in Spinal Cord Injury to Address Innovation Priorities.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Lifestyle Medicine as a Pathway to Longevity: The Impact of the Healthy Lifestyle Community Program (Cohort 2, HLCP-2) on Oxidative Stress Biomarkers in the Adult Rural German Population.American journal of lifestyle medicine · 2025Article
- A roadmap for safe, regulation-compliant Living Labs for AI and digital health development.Science advances · 2025Review
- Health-Promoting Effects and Everyday Experiences With a Mental Health App Using Ecological Momentary Assessments and AI-Based Ecological Momentary Interventions Among Young People: Qualitative Interview and Focus Group Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- Pharmacist-led new medicine service: a real-world cohort study in the Netherlands on drug-related problems, satisfaction, and self-efficacy in cardiovascular patients transitioning to primary care.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Living Lab Dementia: process evaluation of an academic-practice partnership in German long term care for people living with dementia - study protocol.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe 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.
methodsAn 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
resultsOf 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.
conclusionsThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.