You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
Media type:
E-Article
Title:
Co-designing care for multimorbidity: a systematic review
Contributor:
Sumner, Jennifer;
Ng, Celeste Wen Ting;
Teo, Kimberly Ee Lin;
Peh, Adena Li Tyin;
Lim, Yee Wei
Published:
Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2024
Published in:
BMC Medicine, 22 (2024) 1
Language:
English
DOI:
10.1186/s12916-024-03263-9
ISSN:
1741-7015
Origination:
Footnote:
Description:
Abstract Background The co-design of health care enables patient-centredness by partnering patients, clinicians and other stakeholders together to create services. Methods We conducted a systematic review of co-designed health interventions for people living with multimorbidity and assessed (a) their effectiveness in improving health outcomes, (b) the co-design approaches used and (c) barriers and facilitators to the co-design process with people living with multimorbidity. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus and PsycINFO between 2000 and March 2022. Included experimental studies were quality assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB-2 and ROBINS-I). Results We screened 14,376 reports, with 13 reports meeting the eligibility criteria. Two reported health and well-being outcomes: one randomised clinical trial (n = 134) and one controlled cohort (n = 1933). Outcome measures included quality of life, self-efficacy, well-being, anxiety, depression, functional status, healthcare utilisation and mortality. Outcomes favouring the co-design interventions compared to control were minimal, with only 4 of 17 outcomes considered beneficial. Co-design approaches included needs assessment/ideation (12 of 13), prototype (11 of 13), pilot testing (5 of 13) (i.e. focus on usability) and health and well-being evaluations (2 of 13). Common challenges to the co-design process include poor stakeholder interest, passive participation, power imbalances and a lack of representativeness in the design group. Enablers include flexibility in approach, smaller group work, advocating for stakeholders’ views and commitment to the process or decisions made. Conclusions In this systematic review of co-design health interventions, we found that few projects assessed health and well-being outcomes, and the observed health and well-being benefits were minimal. The intensity and variability in the co-design approaches were substantial, and challenges were evident. Co-design aided the design of novel services and interventions for those with multimorbidity, improving their relevance, usability and acceptability. However, the clinical benefits of co-designed interventions for those with multimorbidity are unclear.