The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A generative co-design framework for healthcare innovation: development and application of an end-user engagement framework
Open accessAbstract
Plain English summary: Background Continual improvements to health systems, products, and services are necessary for improvements in health. However, many of these improvements are not incorporated into everyday practice. When designing new health systems, products, and services, involving members of the healthcare community and the public with personal healthcare experience can help to make sure that improvements will be useful and relevant to others like them. Methods Together with healthcare workers and family members with healthcare experience, we developed and applied a step-by-step guide to involving those with personal experience in the design of health system improvements. Results Our guide has three phases— ‘Pre-Design’, ‘Co-Design’, and ‘Post-Design’. This paper describes each of these phases and illustrates how we applied them to our own project, which is to use virtual healthcare methods to improve care for children with chronic healthcare conditions and their families. In our own work, we found that healthcare workers and family members with personal healthcare experiences were able to use their knowledge and creativity to help us imagine how to improve care for children with chronic healthcare conditions and their families. We have created action items from these family member- and healthcare worker-identified needs, which we will use to shape our virtual healthcare system. Conclusions This paper may be useful for those seeking to involve members of the healthcare community and the public in the creation of better healthcare systems, products, and services. Background Challenges with the adoption, scale, and spread of health innovations represent significant gaps in the evidence-to-practice cycle. In the health innovation design process, a lack of attention paid to the needs of end-users, and subsequent tailoring of innovations to meet these needs, is a possible reason for this deficit. In the creative field of health innovation, which includes the design of healthcare products, systems (governance and organization mechanisms), and services (delivery mechanisms), a framework for both soliciting the needs of end-users and translating these needs into the design of health innovations is needed. Methods To address this gap, our team developed and applied a seven-step methodological framework, called A Generative Co-Design Framework for Healthcare Innovation. This framework was developed by an interdisciplinary team that included patient partners. Results This manuscript contributes a framework and applied exemplar for those seeking to engage end-users in the creative process of healthcare innovation. Through the stages of ‘Pre-Design’, ‘Co-Design’, and ‘Post-Design’, we were able to harness the creative insights of end-users, drawing on their experiences to shape a future state of care. Using an expository example of our own work, the DigiComp Kids project, we illustrate the application of each stage of the Framework. Conclusions A Generative Co-Design Framework for Healthcare Innovation provides healthcare innovators, applied health science researchers, clinicians, and quality improvement specialists with a guide to eliciting and incorporating the viewpoints of end-users while distilling practical considerations for healthcare innovation and design.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732305276687 · Cited by 44,601
Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013) · Nursing & Health Sciences · doi:10.1111/nhs.12048 · Cited by 8,327
Co-creation and the new landscapes of design
Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008) · CoDesign · doi:10.1080/15710880701875068 · Cited by 5,561
Doyle, C., Lennox, L., & Bell, D. (2013) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001570 · Cited by 2,425
Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2006) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.2004.028662 · Cited by 2,420
Staniszewska, S., Brett, J., Simera, I., Seers, K., Mockford, C., Goodlad, S., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Barber, R., Denegri, S., et al. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j3453 · Cited by 1,983
Staniszewska, S., Brett, J., Simera, I., Seers, K., Mockford, C., Goodlad, S., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Barber, R., Denegri, S., et al. (2017) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2 · Cited by 1,643 · cited 2×
“End-user involvement is integral to the design, conduct, and analysis of the entire DigiComp Kids project, and is reported here according to the GRIPP2 Long Form Checklist [21] (Additional file 2).”
MethodCanadian Institutes of Health Research
(2019) · The Grants Register 2020 · doi:10.1057/978-1-349-95943-3_219 · Cited by 1,466
A Holistic Framework to Improve the Uptake and Impact of eHealth Technologies
van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E., Nijland, N., van Limburg, M., Ossebaard, H. C., Kelders, S. M., Eysenbach, G., & Seydel, E. R. (2011) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1672 · Cited by 1,126 · cited 6×
“In particular, health system transformation via virtual care technology innovations, which is the focus of the DigiComp Kids project, is often undertaken by research teams without adequate attention paid to involvement of end-users in the design of innovations, resulting in a lack of adoption, scale, and spread [24, 2…”
BackgroundInfluentialGreenhalgh, T., Hinton, L., Finlay, T., Macfarlane, A., Fahy, N., Clyde, B., & Chant, A. (2019) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12888 · Cited by 1,059
Cited by
Baines, R., Bradwell, H., Edwards, K., Stevens, S., Prime, S., Tredinnick‐Rowe, J., Sibley, M., & Chatterjee, A. (2022) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.13506 · Cited by 138
Ludlow, K., Russell, J. K., Ryan, B., Brown, R. L., Joynt, T., Uhlmann, L. R., Smith, G. E., Donovan, C., Hides, L., Spence, S. H., et al. (2023) · DIGITAL HEALTH · doi:10.1177/20552076231216410 · Cited by 42
Clinician Perspectives on Ambient AI Scribes in the Intensive Care Unit: Qualitative Interview Study
Jalilian, L., Manafi, N., Vandiver, M. S., Lukac, P., & Kadambi, A. (2026) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/81445
“These findings underscore the importance of participatory design approaches that give clinicians agency in developing how ambient AI-generated documentation is presented [25].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Bird, M., McGillion, M., Chambers, E. M., Dix, J., Fajardo, C. J., Gilmour, M., Levesque, K., Lim, A., Mierdel, S., Ouellette, C., Polanski, A. N., Reaume, S. V., Whitmore, C., & Carter, N.
- Venue
- Research Involvement and Engagement
- Published
- 2021-03-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 12-12
- ISSN
- 2056-7529 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3134990841
- Cited by
- 316
- References
- 38
- FWCI
- 29.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A generative co-design framework for healthcare innovation: development and application of an end-user engagement framework. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s40900-021-00252-7
- The paper
- Bird, M., McGillion, M., Chambers, E. M., Dix, J., Fajardo, C. J., Gilmour, M., Levesque, K., Lim, A., Mierdel, S., Ouellette, C., Polanski, A. N., Reaume, S. V., Whitmore, C., & Carter, N. (2021). A generative co-design framework for healthcare innovation: development and application of an end-user engagement framework. Research Involvement and Engagement. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00252-7
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.