Objective The primary aim was to review and synthesise the current evidence of how older adults are involved in codesign approaches to develop electronic healthcare tools (EHTs). The secondary aim was to identify how the codesign approaches used mutual learning techniques to benefit older adult participants. Design Systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews 2020 checklist. Data sources PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases were searched for studies from January 2010 to March 2021. Eligibility criteria Inclusion criteria were studies employing codesign approaches to develop an EHTs, and the study population was aged 60 years and older. Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted for analysis and risk of bias. We evaluated the quality of studies using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center approach. Results Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. All studies used at least two involvement processes, with interviews and prototypes used most frequently. Through cross-classification, we found an increased utilisation of functional prototypes in studies reaching the ‘empower’ level of participation and found that studies which benefitted from mutual learning had a higher utilisation of specific involvement processes such as focus groups and functional prototyping. Conclusions We found gaps to support which involvement processes, participation levels and learning models should be employed when codesigning with older adults. This is important because higher levels of participation may increase the user’s knowledge of technology, enhance learning and empower participants. To ensure studies optimise participation and learning of older adults when developing EHTs, there is a need to place more emphasis on the approaches promoting mutual learning. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021240013.

Background: The approval of novel therapies for patients diagnosed with hematologic malignancies have improved survival outcomes but increased the challenge of aligning chemotherapy choices with patient preferences. We previously developed paper versions of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a best-worst scaling (BWS) instrument to quantify the treatment outcome preferences of patients with hematologic malignancies to inform shared decision making. Objective: We aim to develop an electronic health care tool (EHT) to guide clinical decision making that uses either a BWS or DCE instrument to capture patient preferences. The primary objective of this study is to use both qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate the perceived usability, cognitive workload (CWL), and performance of electronic prototypes that include the DCE and BWS instrument. Methods: This mixed methods study includes iterative co-design methods that will involve healthy volunteers, patient-caregiver pairs, and health care workers to evaluate the perceived usability, CWL, and performance of tasks within distinct prototypes. Think-aloud sessions and semistructured interviews will be conducted to collect qualitative data to develop an affinity diagram for thematic analysis. Validated assessments (Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire [PSSUQ] and the National Aeronautical and Space Administration’s Task Load Index [NASA-TLX]) will be used to evaluate the usability and CWL required to complete tasks within the prototypes. Performance assessments of the DCE and BWS will include the evaluation of tasks using the Single Easy Questionnaire (SEQ), time to complete using the prototype, and the number of errors. Additional qualitative assessments will be conducted to gather participants’ feedback on visualizations used in the Personalized Treatment Preferences Dashboard that provides a representation of user results after completing the choice tasks within the prototype. Results: Ethical approval was obtained in June 2021 from the Institutional Review Board of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The DCE and BWS instruments were developed and incorporated into the PRIME (Preference Reporting to Improve Management and Experience) prototype in early 2021 and prototypes were completed by June 2021. Heuristic evaluations were conducted in phase 1 and completed by July 2021. Recruitment of healthy volunteers began in August 2021 and concluded in September 2021. In December 2021, our findings from phase 2 were accepted for publication. Phase 3 recruitment began in January 2022 and is expected to conclude in September 2022. The data analysis from phase 3 is expected to be completed by November 2022. Conclusions: Our findings will help differentiate the usability, CWL, and performance of the DCE and BWS within the prototypes. These findings will contribute to the optimization of the prototypes, leading to the development of an EHT that helps facilitate shared decision making. This evaluation will inform the development of EHTs to be used clinically with patients and health care workers. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/39586

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to assess whether varying input communication factors impacted participants’ perceived confidence, motivation, and likelihood to act (i.e., share or discuss their preferences and values with their clinician or family/caregiver) when receiving tailored communication from a values-clarification tool.Methods: This study was conducted over a two-month period at the North Carolina Basnight Cancer Hospital. Patients with hematologic malignancies participated in evaluating three distinct messages that varied on three input communication factors.Results: Results from this study indicate that most study participants preferred messages that were moderately direct, contained succinct question prompts, and that were empowering. Results also indicate that diverse perspectives and external influences may impact confidence and motivation toward discussing preferences with their clinicians.Discussion: Our findings suggest the importance of validating the input communication factors within values-clarification tools before presenting results to patients and the need to evaluate potential disparities in patients’ participation toward discussing their preferences. Evidence from this study provides direction for future research efforts focused on improving shared decision-making among older adults.

Quality checklists have demonstrated benefits in healthcare and other high-reliability organizations, but there remains a gap in the understanding of design approaches and levels of stakeholder engagement in the development of these quality checklists. This scoping review aims to synthesize the current knowledge base regarding the use of various design approaches for developing quality checklists in healthcare. Secondary objectives are to explore theoretical frameworks, design principles, stakeholder involvement and engagement, and characteristics of the design methods used for developing quality checklists. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews 2020 checklist. Seven databases (PubMed, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore) were searched for studies using a comprehensive search strategy developed in collaboration with a health sciences librarian. Search terms included “checklist” and “user-centered design” and their related terms. The IAP2 Spectrum of Participation Framework was used to categorize studies by level of stakeholder engagement during data extraction. Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Twenty-three distinct design methods were identified that were predominantly non-collaborative in nature (e.g., interviews, surveys, and other methods that involved only one researcher and one participant at a given time). Analysis of the levels of stakeholder engagement revealed a gap in studies that empowered their stakeholders in the quality checklist design process. Highly effective, clear, and standardized methodologies are needed for the design of quality checklists. Future work needs to explore how stakeholders can be empowered in the design process, and how different levels of stakeholder engagement might impact implementation outcomes.

Background/Objectives: Improvements in catheter connection design intended to increase safety have resulted in connections that are difficult to release manually. No medical device exists to safely disconnect catheter connections. Nurses and other users have developed workarounds including use of hemostats, tourniquets, and wrenches. These workarounds are not always successful for performing this task and can break catheters and catheter connections. This study aimed to evaluate a disconnection device to safely disconnect catheter connections. Methods: This is a mixed-methods study using a user-centered design approach with triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data mapped to Valdez’s sociotechnical framework. Nurses (N = 139) from units across two academic medical centers encompassing diverse patient populations engaged in usability testing and surveys. Data about users’ past catheter disconnection experiences and usability of the specialized disconnection device were collected and analyzed. Triangulation of quantitative data and qualitative themes was mapped using Valdez’s socio-technical framework to complement and strengthen the final design generated for nurses’ user requirements. Results: Ninety-five percent of nurses reported previous difficulty with disconnecting luer connections; 93% of those reporting difficulty improvised with readily available medical devices or products to better grip the connected parts. Over 85% of nurses reported positive experiences using the specialized disconnection device; others suggested design improvements for better performance. Conclusions: The nurses who tested the developed disconnection device reported high acceptability, accessibility, ease of use, and improved task performance. Moreover, as workarounds develop at points of practice where no systematic solution exists, aiming product development activities at these points help close gaps in achieving and maintaining patient safety. This study was not registered.