Bridging Gaps in Healthcare Innovation: A Systematic Review of Design Methodologies for Problem Discovery in Technological Health Products
Main Article Content
Keywords
health, innovation, human-centered design, digital health, product development, systematic review
Abstract
Digital health and medical technology products are often developed with strong technical expertise but shallow early problem framing. This can lead to misaligned solutions, rework, and low adoption in real-world care. This systematic review synthesizes how design methodologies are used to deepen problem understanding during the creation of technological healthcare products.
We followed PRISMA 2020 guidance and structured the protocol using PICOC. We searched PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and BVSalud for peer-reviewed articles in English published from 2016 onward that described frameworks or methodological processes for developing technological health products. A nine-item quality checklist assessed how clearly studies reported procedures, objectives, structures, challenges, limitations, and multidisciplinary collaboration.
The search identified 513 records; 33 full texts were screened, and 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most used a human-centered, user-centered, or participatory design to support the development of medical devices, monitoring systems, digital mental health services, reproductive health platforms, and tools for older adults and children. Design methods were widely applied to improve usability, acceptability, and experience, and to address the needs of specific populations. However, most frameworks focused on solution refinement and usability testing rather than deep, systematic early-stage problem discovery, and regulatory, data, and interoperability constraints were rarely integrated in the initial design phases.
The review indicates that design methodologies play an important role in the included health innovation literature but also reveals a gap: there is no consolidated, early-stage instrument that links problem discovery, evidence synthesis, and explicit go/hold/no-go decisions for technological health products.
References
[1] Brown T. Design thinking. Harvard Business Review. 2008;86(6):84–92.
[2] Brown T. Change by design: how design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: Harper Business; 2009.
[3] Cross N. Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science. Design Issues. 2001;17(3):49–55. https://doi.org/10.1162/074793601750357196.
[4] Dorst K. The core of “design thinking” and its application. Design Studies. 2011;32(6):521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006.
[5] Sanders EBN, Stappers PJ. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign. 2008;4(1):5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068.
[6] Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (British Medical Journal). 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.
[7] Busch E, Strobel N, Nobach K, Bulitta C, Hirshfeld JW, Wu L, et al. Optimizing the innovation and development process of medical devices: a study based on angiographic equipment. Health and Technology 2021;11(4):783–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-021-00537-7.
[8] Smith MJ, Vinayak S, Warty R, Nair A, Krishnan S, Wallace EM, et al. Defining the clinician’s role in early health technology assessment during medical device innovation: a systematic review. BMC Health Services Research 2019;19:514. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4305-9.
[9] Harte R, Glynn L, Rodríguez-Molinero A, Baker PMA, Scharf T, Quinlan LR, et al. Human-centered design study: enhancing the usability of a mobile phone app in an integrated falls risk detection system for use by older adult users. JMIR mhealth and uhealth. 2017;5(5):e71. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.7046.
[10] Harte R, Quinlan LR, Glynn L, Rodríguez-Molinero A, Baker PMA, Scharf T, et al. A human-centered design methodology to enhance the usability, human factors, and user experience of connected health systems: a three-phase methodology. JMIR Human Factors. 2017;4(1):e8. https://doi.org/10.2196/humanfactors.5443.
[11] Adam MB, Minyenya-Njuguna J, Kamiru WK, Mbugua S, Makobu NW, Donelson AJ. Implementation research and human-centred design: a systematic review of how they can contribute to improve community health volunteer performance and retention. Health Policy and Planning. 2020;35(Suppl 2):ii150–ii161. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czaa129.
[12] Ippoliti NB, Baringer L, Sekamana M, Hope R. Using human-centered design to develop, launch, and evaluate a national digital health platform to improve reproductive health for Rwandan youth. Global Health Science and Practice. 2021;9(Suppl 2):S244–S260. https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-21-00220.
[13] Briede-Westermeyer JC, Pérez Villalobos C, Olivera Morales P, Glaria López R, Bustamante Durán C. Design and health: an interdisciplinary baseline experience of product design for health needs of the Chilean elderly. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association. 2021;71(2):449–455. https://doi.org/10.47391/JPMA.672.
[14] Kafaee N, Khosravi F, Sadiq F. Design for well-being: the fourth generation of technology development. Technology in Society. 2021;67:101775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101775.
[15] Polhemus AM, Novak LL, Rogers ML, Patterson ES. Human-centered design strategies for device selection in remote health programs: development of a novel framework and case study. JMIR mhealth and uhealth. 2020;8(5):e16043. https://doi.org/10.2196/16043.
[16] Lyon AR, Dopp AR, Brewer SK, Kientz JA, Munson SA. Designing the future of children’s mental health services. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2020;47(5):735–751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-020-01038-x.
[17] Sims T. Participatory design of healthcare technology with children. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance. 2018;31(1):20–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-11-2016-0162.
[18] Carayon P, Wooldridge A, Hoonakker P, Hundt AS, Kelly MM. SEIPS 3.0: human-centered design of the patient journey for patient safety. Applied Ergonomics. 2020;84:103033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.103033.
[19] Holden RJ, Carayon P, Gurses AP, Hoonakker P, Schoofs Hundt A, Karsh BT. SEIPS 2.0: a human factors framework for studying and improving the work of healthcare professionals and patients. Ergonomics. 2013;56(11):1669–1686. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.838643.
[20] Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quarterly. 2004;82(4):581–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x.
[21] Rubin J, Chisnell D. Handbook of usability testing: how to plan, design, and conduct effective tests. 2nd ed. Indianapolis (IN): Wiley Publishing; 2008.
