TY - JOUR
T1 - An umbrella review on how digital health intervention co-design is conducted and described
AU - Kilfoy, Alicia
AU - Hsu, Chloe
AU - Stockton-Powdrell, Charlotte
AU - Whelan, Pauline
AU - Chu, Charlene H
AU - Jibb, Lindsay
PY - 2024/12/23
Y1 - 2024/12/23
N2 - Co-design has been suggested to improve intervention effectiveness and sustainability. However, digital health intervention co-design is inconsistently reported. This umbrella review aims to synthesize what is known about co-design of digital health interventions. We searched five databases from inception. Reviews which reported on co-design methodologies used in digital health were eligible. Information on review type, health conditions, and reported specifics of co-design were extracted and synthesized. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR2 tool. We included 21 reviews published between 2015 and 2023. Co-design participants included patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals. The frequency and breadth of participant involvement in co-design activities were reported in less than half of reviews. Participants evaluated intervention co-design as a positive process. All reviews were rated as critically low quality. This umbrella review highlights the inconsistent reporting of co-design in digital health. Here, we emphasize the importance of creating guidelines to direct co-design activities.
AB - Co-design has been suggested to improve intervention effectiveness and sustainability. However, digital health intervention co-design is inconsistently reported. This umbrella review aims to synthesize what is known about co-design of digital health interventions. We searched five databases from inception. Reviews which reported on co-design methodologies used in digital health were eligible. Information on review type, health conditions, and reported specifics of co-design were extracted and synthesized. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR2 tool. We included 21 reviews published between 2015 and 2023. Co-design participants included patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals. The frequency and breadth of participant involvement in co-design activities were reported in less than half of reviews. Participants evaluated intervention co-design as a positive process. All reviews were rated as critically low quality. This umbrella review highlights the inconsistent reporting of co-design in digital health. Here, we emphasize the importance of creating guidelines to direct co-design activities.
U2 - 10.1038/s41746-024-01385-1
DO - 10.1038/s41746-024-01385-1
M3 - Article
SN - 2398-6352
JO - n p j Digital Medicine
JF - n p j Digital Medicine
M1 - 374
ER -