ArticleBMJ open2026
Living lab approaches in rural healthcare: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLiving labs represent a user-centric approach to solving real-world challenges by encouraging active participation of external stakeholders in co-designing the research and innovation process. Highlighted by contextual research and user co-creation, living labs are ideal for addressing the challenges of providing optimal healthcare to patients living in rural and remote regions. Our objective was to synthesise the existing research on the living lab approach in co-designing, developing or implementing a rural healthcare service, clinical intervention or health-related technology.
designScoping review. DATA SOURCES: A search was conducted on 10 May 2025, to identify articles from three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included published literature that presented a living lab approach to improve the provision of healthcare services in a rural environment. We excluded articles examining social determinants of health (eg, physical activity and general health promotion) without a direct link to clinical service innovation or healthcare delivery. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We collected data on study methodologies, settings, stakeholders and innovation types. Data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers using a standardised form. We used frequencies and a narrative synthesis to map characteristics, methods and contexts of living lab applications in rural healthcare.
resultsThe search identified a total of 1080 articles and ultimately included 11 articles. Studies were published between 2016 and 2025 and conducted in Canada (n=3), the USA (n=3), Australia (n=2), Guatemala (n=1), Uganda (n=1) and France/Portugal (n=1). Study settings included rural hospitals, regional health networks, Indigenous communities, farming and fishing communities and underserved rural regions. Health issues targeted included cardiovascular disease, diabetes, musculoskeletal conditions, perinatal care, palliative care and infectious disease management. Study methodologies included formalised, theory-driven frameworks (n=4), community-based participatory research (n=4), user- or human-centred design (n=3) and co-design workshops and interviews (n=3). Only one study explicitly used the term 'living lab' to describe their innovation.
conclusionsRelatively few living lab approaches have been meaningfully applied in rural health. There is a need for greater global diversification, expanded domains of focus and more robust evaluation to fully understand the potential and impact of living labs in rural healthcare.
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.