Value Cocreation and Codestruction in Digital Health Services: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: To successfully design, develop, implement, and deliver digital health services that provide value, they should be cocreated with patients. However, occasionally, the value may also be codestructed. In the field of health care, the concepts of value cocreation and codestruction still need to be better established within emerging digital health services. Studying these concepts is essential for developing effective and sustainable patient-centered care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is (1) to understand the antecedents, decisions, and outcomes of value cocreation and codestruction in digital health services, (2) to define the dynamics between value cocreation and codestruction, and (3) to map future research areas of value cocreation and codestruction within digital health services. METHODS: The systematic review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for mixed method systematic reviews and the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. The review considers scientific qualitative, quantitative, or mixed method studies published in English, Finnish, or Swedish that concern either value cocreation or codestruction in digital health services. Studies focusing on physical robotics and online health communities, as well as non-peer-reviewed and nonscientific papers, will be excluded. The searches were conducted using Scopus and MEDLINE during this protocol creation. Critical appraisal will be done using suitable checklists for qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method studies. The review will adhere to a convergent integrated approach as outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for mixed methods systematic reviews. RESULTS: The searches resulted in a total of 837 records. The antecedents, decisions, and outcomes of value cocreation and codestruction in the context of digital health services will be described in a finalized systematic review. In the outcomes, our main interest is the effect on patient outcomes and experiences and professional experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Since our study involves diverse scientific fields, there is a risk that our search does not capture all relevant papers. To mitigate this risk, we used 2 large databases for the searches. In addition, the value cocreation or codestruction terms may not have been used in all studies focusing on the collaborative roles of patients and providers, especially in the medical field, and that may be difficult to capture. The review reveals the current understanding of value cocreation and codestruction in digital health services and shapes the research agenda for these phenomena. Value cocreation can be used to both design and efficiently use digital health services trying to maximize the value for patients. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/63015.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».