ArticleLearning health systems2026
Engaging Patients in Learning Health Systems Research Using Human Centered Design: A Scoping Review.
Article in Learning health systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Facilitators and barriers to patient and public involvement in developing learning health systems within community health services: ascoping review.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Review
- A Protocol for Identifying Priorities for Women+ Health in the Maritime Provinces Using a Priority Setting Partnership Approach.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Engaging Patients in Learning Health Systems Research Using Human Centered Design: A Scoping Review.Learning health systems · 2026Article
- From Creative Engagement to Illustrative Insights: Exploring the Role of Design Probes for Implementation Research.Implementation research and practiceArticle
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
Introduction: The "Learning Health System" (LHS) relies on meaningful patient and public engagement to foster innovation in healthcare. However, effective methods for involving these stakeholders in LHS research are unclear. This scoping review examines the use of Human-Centered Design (HCD) to engage patients and the public in LHS research. Methods: Following Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science for LHS research studies using HCD to engage patients and the public. Data were categorized by: (1) Study Characteristics, (2) Participant Characteristics and Group Dynamics, (3) HCD Approach, Stages, and Methods, (4) Participant Satisfaction and Engagement, and (5) Focused Demographic Participation. Results: Among the included studies, participants in the HCD process included children and adults with conditions such as cancer, dementia, and stroke, often joined by their families and healthcare clinicians. Research spanned innovations in patient engagement, digital health, quality improvement, care delivery, environmental design, and clinical support tools. Participatory workshops were the most used HCD method. Group activities fostered creativity and diverse perspectives; individual activities offered deeper insights. A common challenge was limited engagement in later design stages, particularly prototyping. Studies involving harder-to-reach populations implemented extreme user design, creative design tools like photovoice and the Conclusions: Our review found HCD to be an effective method for engaging patients and the public in LHS research. It has been applied to engage individuals across a wide range of health conditions, age groups, and socioeconomic backgrounds, driving targeted innovations and system-level improvement. Its adaptability allows real-time adjustments in research pace and design, enabling iteration, strategy refinement, and inclusion of new populations as insights emerge. Blending discussion-based methods (e.g., interviews, workshops) with experiential approaches (e.g., role-playing, prototyping) boosts participant engagement and satisfaction. Future research should identify optimal group sizes, the most appropriate methods for each design stage, and the impact of integrating HCD with other research approaches.
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.