Nurse involvement in health information technology design for digital nursing practice: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is growing demand for user involvement in health information technology (IT) design to ensure that emerging technologies meet the needs and expectations of end users. This scoping review explored the state of nurses’ involvement in health IT design, focusing on the: (1) methods, frequency, capacity, and levels of involvement in the design process; (2) types of health IT systems nurses are included in designing; and (3) outcomes of nurses’ inclusion in the design process. This review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. A systematic search was conducted in seven databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Applied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBCOhost), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, Web of Science, Compendex Engineering Village and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Xplore Digital Library database platforms. A total of 3,364 studies were screened at the title/abstract phase. After initial exclusions, 632 articles were screened for full texts, 495 were excluded, resulting in a final set of 137 eligible articles. Included studies most frequently involved nurses as users or testers of the technologies – usually at the end stages of the design process. Most studies interchangeably used the concepts of human-centred design and user-centred design to guide the design process. Interviews, surveys, observations and think-aloud techniques were the most frequently used design methods to elicit nurses’ perspectives about health IT systems. However, it was unclear which methods or approaches were most effective in engaging nurses in the design process. No standardized or validated nurse engagement frameworks were reported. These findings highlight the need to explore the nature of nurses’ involvement in design, their preferences in engagement and specific contributions and roles in order to develop an evidence-based approach to guide nurses’ participation in the design process. Author summary Nurses are rarely involved in health IT design, particularly in the early design stages. Failure to involve nurses in early stages can lead to IT systems lacking specific nursing contents, functionalities, and technical features, which may affect the use of the systems for nursing work. In this study, we found evidence of nurses being included at the end stages of the design process. Despite majority of the studies focusing on health IT design and development, nurses were mainly involved as users or testers of the technologies. In other words, nurses were mainly engaged in usability testing activities, which typically occur at the end of the design process rather than upstream design phases. We found that the concepts of human-centred design and user-centred design used interchangeably. At the end of the design processes, nurses perceived the IT systems as acceptable and usable, and either integrated or willing to integrate into clinical practice. Nurses perceived satisfaction with the design process resulting from effective technologies highlight the importance of engaging them in every stage of the design process. Our findings suggest that nurses have potential to leverage their clinical expertise and practical understanding of nursing workflows to guide health care technology design processes.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".