24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Design Thinking in Health Care

      , PhD , 1 , 2 , 3 , , PhD, MPH, MBA 4 , , PhD 2

      Preventing Chronic Disease

      Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Applying Design Thinking to health care could enhance innovation, efficiency, and effectiveness by increasing focus on patient and provider needs. The objective of this review is to determine how Design Thinking has been used in health care and whether it is effective.

          Methods

          We searched online databases (PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PyscINFO) for articles published through March 31, 2017, using the terms “health,” “health care,” or “healthcare”; and “Design Thinking,” “design science,” “design approach,” “user centered design,” or “human centered design.” Studies were included if they were written in English, were published in a peer-reviewed journal, provided outcome data on a health-related intervention, and used Design Thinking in intervention development, implementation, or both. Data were collected on target users, health conditions, intervention, Design Thinking approach, study design or sample, and health outcomes. Studies were categorized as being successful (all outcomes improved), having mixed success (at least one outcome improved), or being not successful (no outcomes improved).

          Results

          Twenty-four studies using Design Thinking were included across 19 physical health conditions, 2 mental health conditions, and 3 systems processes. Twelve were successful, 11 reported mixed success, and one was not successful. All 4 studies comparing Design Thinking interventions to traditional interventions showed greater satisfaction, usability, and effectiveness.

          Conclusion

          Design Thinking is being used in varied health care settings and conditions, although application varies. Design Thinking may result in usable, acceptable, and effective interventions, although there are methodological and quality limitations. More research is needed, including studies to isolate critical components of Design Thinking and compare Design Thinking–based interventions with traditionally developed interventions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          A Web-Based Psychoeducational Program for Informal Caregivers of Patients With Alzheimer’s Disease: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

          Background Although several face-to-face programs are dedicated to informal caregivers of persons with dementia, they are not always accessible to overburdened or isolated caregivers. Based on a face-to-face intervention program, we adapted and designed a Web-based fully automated psychoeducational program (called Diapason) inspired by a cognitive approach. Objective This study aimed to evaluate through a pilot unblinded randomized controlled trial the efficacy and acceptability of a Web-based psychoeducational program for informal caregivers of persons with Alzheimer’s disease (PWAD) based on a mixed methods research design. Methods We recruited and randomized offline 49 informal caregivers of a PWAD in a day care center in Paris, France. They either received the Web-based intervention and usual care for 3 months (experimental group, n=25) or only usual care (control group, n=24). Caregivers’ perceived stress (PSS-14, primary outcome), self-efficacy, burden, perceived health status, and depression (secondary outcomes) were measured during 3 face-to-face on-site visits: at baseline, at the end of the program (month 3), and after follow-up (month 6). Additionally, semistructured interviews were conducted with experimental group caregivers at month 6 and examined with thematic analysis. Results Intention-to-treat analysis did not show significant differences in self-perceived stress between the experimental and control groups (P=.98). The experimental group significantly improved their knowledge of the illness (d=.79, P=.008) from baseline to month 3. Of the 25 participants allocated to the experimental group, 17 (71%) finished the protocol and entirely viewed at least 10 of 12 online sessions. On average, participants used the website 19.72 times (SD 12.88) and were connected for 262.20 minutes (SD 270.74). The results of the satisfaction questionnaire showed that most participants considered the program to be useful (95%, 19/20), clear (100%, 20/20), and comprehensive (85%, 17/20). Significant correlations were found between relationship and caregivers’ program opinion (P=.01). Thus, positive opinions were provided by husbands and sons (3/3), whereas qualified opinions were primarily reported by daughters (8/11). Female spouses expressed negative (2/3) or neutral opinions (1/3). Caregivers expected more dynamic content and further interaction with staff and peers. Conclusions In this study, quantitative results were inconclusive owing to small sample size. Qualitative results indicated/showed little acceptance of the program and high expectations from caregivers. Caregivers did not rule out their interest in this kind of intervention provided that it met their needs. More dynamic, personalized, and social interventions are desirable. Our recruitment issues pointed out the necessity of in-depth studies about caregivers’ help-seeking behaviors and readiness factors. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01430286; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01430286 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation/6KxHaRspL).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Development of a Mobile Monitoring and Feedback Tool to Stimulate Physical Activity of People With a Chronic Disease in Primary Care: A User-Centered Design

            Background Physical activity is an important aspect in the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or type-2 diabetes. A monitoring and feedback tool combined with guidance by a primary care provider might be a successful method to enhance the level of physical activity in these patients. As a prerequisite for useful technology, it is important to involve the end-users in the design process from an early stage. Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the user requirements for a tool to stimulate physical activity, embedded in primary care practice. The leading principle of this tool is to change behavior by self-monitoring, goal-setting, and feedback. Methods The research team collected qualitative data among 15 patients, 16 care professionals, and several experts. A prototype was developed in three stages. In stage 1, the literature was searched to identify end-users and context. In stage 2, the literature, experts and patient representatives were consulted to set up a use case with the general idea of the innovation. In stage 3, individual interviews and focus groups were held to identify the end-user requirements. Based on these requirements a prototype was built by the engineering team. Results The development process has led to a tool that generally meets the requirements of the end-users. A tri-axial activity sensor, worn on the hip, is connected by Bluetooth to a smartphone. In an app, quantitative feedback is given about the amount of activity and goals reached by means of graphical visualization, and an image shows a sun when the goal is reached. Overviews about activity per half an hour, per day, week, and month are provided. In the menu of the app and on a secured website, patients can enter information in individual sessions or read feedback messages generated by the system. The practice nurse can see the results of all patients on a secure webpage and can then discuss the results and set personalized goals in consultation with the patient. Conclusions This study demonstrates that a user-centered approach brings in valuable details (such as the requirements for feedback in activity minutes per day) to improve the fit between the user, technology, and the organization of care, which is important for the usability and acceptability of the tool. The tool embedded in primary care will be evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A design thinking framework for healthcare management and innovation.

              The business community has learned the value of design thinking as a way to innovate in addressing people's needs--and health systems could benefit enormously from doing the same. This paper lays out how design thinking applies to healthcare challenges and how systems might utilize this proven and accessible problem-solving process. We show how design thinking can foster new approaches to complex and persistent healthcare problems through human-centered research, collective and diverse teamwork and rapid prototyping. We introduce the core elements of design thinking for a healthcare audience and show how it can supplement current healthcare management, innovation and practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Prev Chronic Dis
                Prev Chronic Dis
                PCD
                Preventing Chronic Disease
                Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
                1545-1151
                2018
                27 September 2018
                : 15
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
                [2 ]VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, California
                [3 ]Stanford University, Stanford, California
                [4 ]Center for Systems and Community Design, Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, City University of New York, New York, New York
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Myra Altman, PhD, Postdoctoral Design Fellow, Clinical Excellence Research Center, Stanford University, 75 Alta Rd, Stanford, CA 94305. Telephone: 603-306-6231. Email: myra.altman@ 123456gmail.com .
                Article
                18_0128
                10.5888/pcd15.180128
                6178900
                30264690
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                Peer Reviewed

                Health & Social care

                Comments

                Comment on this article