Dataset Information

How does technological system design affect value creation? A systematic literature review of digital co-production

ABSTRACT: The existing studies on co-production display two research gaps. First, most studies focus on non-digital/offline co-production and value creation; little attention has been paid to value creation of digital/online co-production cases. Second, traditional co-production studies examine political, organizational, administrative, and personal factors that influence co-production. However, few studies investigate how technological factors will affect co-production in terms of value creation. To bridge the gaps, this article conducts a systematic literature review of 52 articles. The review results distill seven technological factors and five value categories from digital co-production cases. It further examines how these technological factors affect the creation of various value categories. Based on the review results, this article proposes a future research agenda on digital co-production.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43508-022-00051-0.

SUBMITTER: Mu R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9628496 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCo-creation is increasingly recognized for its potential to generate innovative solutions, particularly in addressing complex and wicked problems in public health. Despite this growing recognition, there are no standards or recommendations for method use in co-creation, leading to confusion and inconsistency. While some studies have examined specific methods, a comprehensive overview is lacking, limiting the collective understanding and ability to make informed decisions about the most appropriate methods for different contexts and research objectives.ObjectiveThis study aimed to systematically compile and analyze methods used in co-creation to enhance transparency and deepen understanding of how co-creation is practiced.MethodsTo enhance transparency and deepen understanding of how co-creation is practiced, this study systematically inventoried and analyzed methods used in co-creation. We conducted a systematic methods overview, applying 2 parallel processes: one within the peer-reviewed Health CASCADE Co-Creation Database and another within gray literature. An artificial intelligence-assisted recursive search strategy, coupled with a 2-step screening process, ensured that we captured relevant methods. We then extracted method names and conducted textual, comparative, and bibliometric analyses to assess the content, relationship between methods, fields of research, and the methodological underpinnings of the included sources.ResultsWe examined a total of 2627 academic papers and gray literature sources, with the literature primarily drawn from health sciences, medical research, and health services research. The dominant methodologies identified were co-creation, co-design, coproduction, participatory research methodologies, and public and patient involvement. From these sources, we extracted and analyzed 956 co-creation methods, noting that only 10% (n=97) of the methods overlap between academic and gray literature. Notably, 91.3% (230/252) of the methods in academic literature co-occurred, often involving combinations of multiple qualitative methods. The most frequently used methods in academic literature included surveys, focus groups, photo voice, and group discussion, whereas gray literature highlighted methods such as world café, focus groups, role-playing, and persona.ConclusionsThis study presents the first systematic overview of co-creation methods, providing a clear understanding of the diverse methods currently in use. Our findings reveal a significant methodological gap between researchers and practitioners, offering insights into the relative prevalence and combinations of methods. By shedding light on these methods, this study helps bridge the gap and supports researchers in making informed decisions about which methods to apply in their work. Additionally, it offers a foundation for further investigation into method use in co-creation. This systematic investigation is a valuable resource for anyone engaging in co-creation or similar participatory methodologies, helping to navigate the diverse landscape of methods.

Project description:BackgroundKnowledge mobilisation is a term used in healthcare research to describe the process of generating, sharing and using evidence. 'Co'approaches, such as co-production, co-design and co-creation, have been proposed as a way of overcoming the knowledge to practice gap. There is a need to understand why researchers choose to adopt these approaches, how they achieve knowledge mobilisation in the management of health conditions, and the extent to which knowledge mobilisation is accomplished.MethodsStudies that explicitly used the terms co-production, co-design or co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions were included. Web of Science, EMBASE via OvidSP, MEDLINE via OvidSP and CINHAL via EBSCO databases were searched up to April 2021. Quality assessment was carried out using the Joanna Briggs Institute qualitative quality assessment checklist. Pluye and Hong's seven steps for mixed studies reviews were followed. Data were synthesised using thematic synthesis.ResultsTwenty four international studies were included. These were qualitative studies, case studies and study protocols. Key aspects of 'co'approaches were bringing people together as active and equal partners, valuing all types of knowledge, using creative approaches to understand and solve problems, and using iterative prototyping techniques. Authors articulated mechanisms of action that included developing a shared understanding, identifying and meeting needs, giving everyone a voice and sense of ownership, and creating trust and confidence. They believed these mechanisms could produce interventions that were relevant and acceptable to stakeholders, more useable and more likely to be implemented in healthcare. Varied activities were used to promote these mechanisms such as interviews and creative workshops. There appeared to be a lack of robust evaluation of the interventions produced so little evidence in this review that 'co'approaches improved the management of health conditions.ConclusionThose using 'co'approaches believed that they could achieve knowledge mobilisation through a number of mechanisms, but there was no evidence that these led to improved health. The framework of key aspects and mechanisms of 'co'approaches developed here may help researchers to meet the principles of these approaches. There is a need for robust evaluation to identify whether 'co'approaches produce improved health outcomes.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020187463 .

Project description:ObjectiveTo carry out a systematic literature review to identify the Value Based Digital Health elements.MethodsThe search for records was carried out for the period 2012 to January 2024, in two main databases, EMBASE and Scopus. Records were limited to studies published since 2012. Studies presented either a conceptual framework on the concept of Value-Based Digital Health (VBDH), or results from an empirical work to generate evidence on the value of digital health, or a combination of both. The characteristics of the study, the type of digital health and measures and/or their value elements included, are synthesized and interpreted. To synthetize information, the patient journey phases are used as themes, where the identified value elements are allocated. This is analyzed by type of agent (of the general healthcare framework).ResultsThe search yielded a total of 606 abstracts for screening. In the end, 67 studies were finally included for data extraction. VBDH elements are presented by phases of the patient journey and by agent. Despite the high heterogeneity of patients, theoretical and empirical works converge in elements such as the value of patient-centered care, education (health literacy) in the use of new digital health technologies, mechanisms to increase patient confidence and their participation in the health decision-making processes, or the importance of collecting patients' reported outcomes and experiences, among other elements. The review also found empty areas among theoretical and empirical studies, where no VBDH elements were identified.ConclusionThis systematic review identified the theoretical and empirical elements to measure the value of digital health and provides a framework of VBDH elements. Some of the theoretical elements are actually used in practice. Others, however, despite being relevant from a theoretical point of view, do not seem to be measured empirically. This work provides researchers of a source, for consultation, of value based digital health elements. This is helpful for improving the measurement of the value of digital health.

Project description:IntroductionCoproduction introduces a fundamental shift in how healthcare service is conceptualised. The mechanistic idea of healthcare being a 'product' generated by the healthcare system and delivered to patients is replaced by that of a service co-created by the healthcare system and the users of healthcare services. Fjeldstad et al offer an approach for conceptualising value creation in complex service contexts that we believe is applicable to coproduction of healthcare service. We have adapted Fjeldstad's value creation model based on a detailed case study of a renal haemodialysis service in Jonkoping, Sweden, which demonstrates coproduction characteristics and key elements of Fjeldstad's model.Methods and analysisWe propose a five-part coproduction value creation model for healthcare service: (1) value chain, characterised by a standardised set of processes that serve a commonly occurring need; (2) value shop, which offers a customised response for unique cases; (3) a facilitated value network, which involves groups of individuals struggling with similar challenges; (4) interconnection between shop, chain and network elements and (5) leadership. We will seek to articulate and assess the value creation model through the work of a community of practice comprised of a diverse international workgroup with representation from executive, financial and clinical leaders as well as other key stakeholders from multiple health systems. We then will conduct pilot studies of a qualitative self-assessment process in participating health systems, and ultimately develop and test quantitative measures for assessing coproduction value creation.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Health Institutional Review Board (D-HH IRB) as a minimal risk research study. Findings and scholarship will be disseminated broadly through continuous engagement with health system stakeholders, national and international academic presentations and publications and an internet-based electronic platform for publicly accessible study information.

Project description:BackgroundHealth authorities worldwide have invested in digital technologies to establish robust information exchange systems for improving the safety and efficiency of medication management. Nevertheless, inaccurate medication lists and information gaps are common, particularly during care transitions, leading to avoidable harm, inefficiencies, and increased costs. Besides fragmented health care processes, the inconsistent incorporation of patient-driven changes contributes to these problems. Concurrently, patient-empowerment tools, such as mobile apps, are often not integrated into health care professional workflows. Leveraging coproduction by allowing patients to update their digital shared medication plans (SMPs) is a promising but underused and challenging approach.ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine the value propositions of a digital tool enabling patients, family caregivers, and health care professionals to coproduce and co-manage medication plans within Switzerland's national eHealth architecture.MethodsWe used an experience-based co-design approach in the French-speaking region of Switzerland. The multidisciplinary research team included 5 patients as co-researchers. We recruited polypharmacy patients, family caregivers, and health care professionals with a broad range of experiences, diseases, and ages. The experience-based co-design had 4 phases: capturing, understanding, and improving experiences, followed by preparing recommendations and next steps. A qualitative, participatory methodology was used to iteratively explore collaborative medication management experiences and identify barriers and enabling mechanisms, including technology. We conducted a thematic analysis of participant interviews to develop value propositions for digital SMPs.ResultsIn total, 31 persons participated in 9 interviews, 5 focus groups, and 2 co-design workshops. We identified four value propositions for involving patients and family caregivers in digital SMP management: (1) comprehensive, accessible information about patients' current medication plans and histories, enabling streamlined access and reconciliation on a single platform; (2) patient and health care professional empowerment through the explicit co-ownership of SMPs, fostering coresponsibility, accountability, and transparent collaboration; (3) a means of supporting collaborative interprofessional medication management, including tailored access to information and improved communication across stakeholders; and (4) an opportunity to improve the quality of care and catalyze digital health innovations. Participants discussed types of patient involvement in editing shared information and emphasized the importance of tailoring SMPs to individual abilities and preferences to foster health equity. Integrating co-management into the clinical routine and creating supportive conditions were deemed important.ConclusionsCoproduced SMPs can improve medication management by fostering trust and collaboration between patients and health care professionals. Successful implementation will require eHealth interoperability frameworks that embrace the complexity of medication management and support diverse use configurations. Our findings underscored the shared responsibility of all stakeholders, including policy makers and technology providers, for the effective and safe use of SMPs. The 4 value propositions offer strategic guidance, while highlighting the need for further research in different health care settings.

Dataset Information

How does technological system design affect value creation? A systematic literature review of digital co-production

Supplementary Information

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets