Human-Centered Design and Benefit Realization Management in Digital Health Care Solution Development: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Earlier research shows that a significant number of resources are wasted on software projects delivering less than the planned benefits. It has, however, been evidenced that adopting a human-centered design approach when designing health devices can be beneficial. This understanding from earlier research has raised our interest in investigating how human-centered design might contribute to realizing the potential benefits of health care software projects. To our current knowledge, this intersection of human-centered design and benefit realization management has not yet comprehensively and consistently been researched within the context of digital health care solutions. Therefore, there is a need for evidence synthesis using systematic reviews to address this potential research gap. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to examine if human-centered design helps benefit realization management processes in the development of digital health care solutions and thereby enables better benefit realization. We explore the evidence of assumed or confirmed benefits of using human-centered design in the health care domain and whether better results have been reported when the benefit realization management process is followed. METHODS: This protocol was developed following the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) guidelines. The proposed review would use a planned and systematic approach to identify, evaluate, and synthesize relevant and recent studies (reported in English) to see if there is evidence that using human-centered design and benefit realization management has a positive effect on realizing set benefits in those projects. We will commence a systematic literature search using human-centered design, benefit realization management, and health care-related search terms within 5 repositories (ACM Digital Library, PubMed Central, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science). After removing duplicate results, a preliminary scan for titles and abstracts will be done by at least 2 reviewers. Any incongruities regarding whether to include articles for full-text review will be resolved by a third reviewer based on the predefined criteria. RESULTS: Initial queries of 2086 records have been executed and papers are being prescreened for inclusion. The search was initiated in December 2023 and the results are expected in 2024. We anticipate finding evidence of the use of human-centered design in the development of digital health care solutions. However, we expect evidence of benefitting from both human-centered design and benefit realization management in this context to be scarce. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol will guide the review of existing literature on the use of human-centered design and benefit realization management when developing digital health care solutions. The review will specifically focus on finding evidence of confirmed benefits derived from the use of human-centered design and benefit realization management. There may be an opportunity to gain a broader understanding of the tools or approaches that provide evidence of increased benefit realization within the health care domain. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/56125.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it