Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research
Date Submitted: Mar 7, 2024
Date Accepted: Jul 25, 2024
Co-designing Remote Patient Monitoring Technologies for Inpatients: A Systematic Review
ABSTRACT
Background:
The co-design of health technology enables patient-centredness and prevents barriers to technology use.
Objective:
To identify what Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) technology has been co-designed for inpatients and how effective it is To identify and describe the co-design approaches used to develop RPM technologies and in which contexts they emerge To identify and describe barriers and facilitators of the co-design process for RPM technologies
Methods:
We conducted a systematic review of co-designed Remote Patient Monitoring technologies for inpatients or immediate post-discharge period and assessed: (a) their effectiveness in improving health outcomes; (b) the co-design approaches used, and (c) barriers and facilitators to the co-design process. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychInfo, and Science Citation Index (Web of Science) in April 2023. We included any study design.
Results:
We screened 3,334 reports, and 17 projects met the eligibility criteria. No studies reported on the clinical outcomes of co-designed RPM technologies. Although we identified pilot evaluations (11 of 17), they primarily focused on non-clinical outcomes such as usability, usefulness, feasibility, and satisfaction. Common co-design approaches included needs assessment/ideation (16 of 17), prototyping (15 of 17), and pilot testing (11 of 17). The most commonly reported challenge to the co-design process was the generalisability of findings, closely followed by time and resource constraints and participant bias. Stakeholders perceived value was the most frequently reported enabler of co-design. Other enablers included continued stakeholder engagement and methodological factors (i.e. flexibility, mixed method approaches, use of prototyping).
Conclusions:
Healthcare organisations increasingly adopt co-design to improve intervention relevance, usability and subsequent adoption. However, we could not conclude the effectiveness of co-designed RPM technologies. A more significant commitment to clinical evaluation is needed. Greater standardisation in the co-design terminology is also needed to improve the quality and consistency of co-design research. Clinical Trial: N/A
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.