“…Many articles conceded that meaningful PPI is both necessary and fundamental, capable of achieving ‘unexpected consequences’ that are both ‘rewarding and fulfilling’. 50 For example: "The process of involving stakeholders in intervention design and development is fundamental… Interviews with cancer survivors and feedback from health care providers and eHealth experts gave vital direction for intervention design and development. …Even though the user‐centred design process can be labour intensive, time consuming, and as such also costly, it is likely a waste of resources not to invest enough time and effort in the essential design and development phase ."…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many articles conceded that meaningful PPI is both necessary and fundamental, capable of achieving ‘unexpected consequences’ that are both ‘rewarding and fulfilling’ 50 . For example: "The process of involving stakeholders in intervention design and development is fundamental… Interviews with cancer survivors and feedback from health care providers and eHealth experts gave vital direction for intervention design and development.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many articles conceded that meaningful PPI is both necessary and fundamental, capable of achieving 'unexpected consequences' that are both 'rewarding and fulfilling'. 50 For example:…”
Introduction:The importance of meaningfully involving patients and the public in digital health innovation is widely acknowledged, but often poorly understood. This review, therefore, sought to explore how patients and the public are involved in digital health innovation and to identify factors that support and inhibit meaningful patient and public involvement (PPI) in digital health innovation, implementation and evaluation.Methods: Searches were undertaken from 2010 to July 2020 in the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and ACM Digital Library. Grey literature searches were also undertaken using the Patient Experience Library database and Google Scholar.Results: Of the 10,540 articles identified, 433 were included. The majority of included articles were published in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, with representation from 42 countries highlighting the international relevance of PPI in digital health. 112 topic areas where PPI had reportedly taken place were identified. Areas most often described included cancer (n = 50), mental health (n = 43), diabetes (n = 26) and long-term conditions (n = 19). Interestingly, over 133 terms were used to describe PPI; few were explicitly defined. Patients were often most involved in the final, passive stages of an innovation journey, for example, usability testing, where the ability to proactively influence change was severely limited. Common barriers to achieving meaningful PPI included data privacy and security concerns, not involving patients early enough and lack of trust.Suggested enablers were often designed to counteract such challenges.
“…Many articles conceded that meaningful PPI is both necessary and fundamental, capable of achieving ‘unexpected consequences’ that are both ‘rewarding and fulfilling’. 50 For example: "The process of involving stakeholders in intervention design and development is fundamental… Interviews with cancer survivors and feedback from health care providers and eHealth experts gave vital direction for intervention design and development. …Even though the user‐centred design process can be labour intensive, time consuming, and as such also costly, it is likely a waste of resources not to invest enough time and effort in the essential design and development phase ."…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many articles conceded that meaningful PPI is both necessary and fundamental, capable of achieving ‘unexpected consequences’ that are both ‘rewarding and fulfilling’ 50 . For example: "The process of involving stakeholders in intervention design and development is fundamental… Interviews with cancer survivors and feedback from health care providers and eHealth experts gave vital direction for intervention design and development.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many articles conceded that meaningful PPI is both necessary and fundamental, capable of achieving 'unexpected consequences' that are both 'rewarding and fulfilling'. 50 For example:…”
Introduction:The importance of meaningfully involving patients and the public in digital health innovation is widely acknowledged, but often poorly understood. This review, therefore, sought to explore how patients and the public are involved in digital health innovation and to identify factors that support and inhibit meaningful patient and public involvement (PPI) in digital health innovation, implementation and evaluation.Methods: Searches were undertaken from 2010 to July 2020 in the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and ACM Digital Library. Grey literature searches were also undertaken using the Patient Experience Library database and Google Scholar.Results: Of the 10,540 articles identified, 433 were included. The majority of included articles were published in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, with representation from 42 countries highlighting the international relevance of PPI in digital health. 112 topic areas where PPI had reportedly taken place were identified. Areas most often described included cancer (n = 50), mental health (n = 43), diabetes (n = 26) and long-term conditions (n = 19). Interestingly, over 133 terms were used to describe PPI; few were explicitly defined. Patients were often most involved in the final, passive stages of an innovation journey, for example, usability testing, where the ability to proactively influence change was severely limited. Common barriers to achieving meaningful PPI included data privacy and security concerns, not involving patients early enough and lack of trust.Suggested enablers were often designed to counteract such challenges.
“…We only identified a few papers that illustrated their procedures. For example, requirements were created by coding user input into requirements [ 101 ], and the requirements were explicitly elucidated by users in a workshop [ 37 ].…”
Background
Digital health refers to the proper use of technology for improving the health and well-being of people and enhancing the care of patients through the intelligent processing of clinical and genetic data. Despite increasing interest in well-being in both health care and technology, there is no clear understanding of what constitutes well-being, which leads to uncertainty in how to create well-being through digital health. In an effort to clarify this uncertainty, Brey developed a framework to define problems in technology for well-being using the following four categories: epistemological problem, scope problem, specification problem, and aggregation problem.
Objective
This systematic scoping review aims to gain insights into how to define and address well-being in digital health.
Methods
We followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. Papers were identified from 6 databases and included if they addressed the design or evaluation of digital health and reported the enhancement of patient well-being as their purpose. These papers were divided into design and evaluation papers. We studied how the 4 problems in technology for well-being are considered per paper.
Results
A total of 117 studies were eligible for analysis (n=46, 39.3% design papers and n=71, 60.7% evaluation papers). For the epistemological problem, the thematic analysis resulted in various definitions of well-being, which were grouped into the following seven values: healthy body, functional me, healthy mind, happy me, social me, self-managing me, and external conditions. Design papers mostly considered well-being as healthy body and self-managing me, whereas evaluation papers considered the values of healthy mind and happy me. Users were rarely involved in defining well-being. For the scope problem, patients with chronic care needs were commonly considered as the main users. Design papers also regularly involved other users, such as caregivers and relatives. These users were often not involved in evaluation papers. For the specification problem, most design and evaluation papers focused on the provision of care support through a digital platform. Design papers used numerous design methods, whereas evaluation papers mostly considered pre-post measurements and randomized controlled trials. For the aggregation problem, value conflicts were rarely described.
Conclusions
Current practice has found pragmatic ways of circumventing or dealing with the problems of digital health for well-being. Major differences exist between the design and evaluation of digital health, particularly regarding their conceptualization of well-being and the types of users studied. In addition, we found that current methodologies for designing and evaluating digital health can be improved. For optimal digital health for well-being, multidisciplinary collaborations that move beyond the common dichotomy of design and evaluation are needed.
“…Personas have been used extensively in the development of DHTs. Example patient groups include diabetics (27), older adults with heart failure (24), patients with coronary heart disease (28), multiple sclerosis (29), renal disease (30), children with cancer (31), women with gynaecological cancer (32), and older people generally (33).…”
Section: A Common Tool For Both the Design And Evaluation Of Digitalmentioning
According to estimates of cancer incidence and mortality, breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in 135 countries and the leading cause of cancer related mortality in over 100 (1). Globally, over 2 million cases of breast cancer are diagnosed each year, accounting for almost 1 in 4 cases of cancer in women. In the UK and the US, it is estimated that between 1 in 7 and 1 in 8 women will develop breast cancer in their lifetime (2,3).
UK breast cancer policyEarlier detection through screening has helped improve breast cancer mortality. The UK breast cancer screening programme was the first of its kind and began in 1988. Through the programme, women aged 50-70 can receive
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
