在医疗保健组织中开发质量检查清单的设计方法:范围审查。

IF 7.7
PLOS digital health Pub Date : 2025-09-16 eCollection Date: 2025-09-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pdig.0001015
Elizabeth Kwong, Amy Cole, Elizabeth Byrd, Dorothy Sippo, Fei Yu, Karthik Adapa, Christopher M Shea, Carlton Moore, Shiva Das, Lukasz Mazur
{"title":"在医疗保健组织中开发质量检查清单的设计方法:范围审查。","authors":"Elizabeth Kwong, Amy Cole, Elizabeth Byrd, Dorothy Sippo, Fei Yu, Karthik Adapa, Christopher M Shea, Carlton Moore, Shiva Das, Lukasz Mazur","doi":"10.1371/journal.pdig.0001015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Quality checklists have demonstrated benefits in healthcare and other high-reliability organizations, but there remains a gap in the understanding of design approaches and levels of stakeholder engagement in the development of these quality checklists. This scoping review aims to synthesize the current knowledge base regarding the use of various design approaches for developing quality checklists in healthcare. Secondary objectives are to explore theoretical frameworks, design principles, stakeholder involvement and engagement, and characteristics of the design methods used for developing quality checklists. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews 2020 checklist. Seven databases (PubMed, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore) were searched for studies using a comprehensive search strategy developed in collaboration with a health sciences librarian. Search terms included \"checklist\" and \"user-centered design\" and their related terms. The IAP2 Spectrum of Participation Framework was used to categorize studies by level of stakeholder engagement during data extraction. Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Twenty-three distinct design methods were identified that were predominantly non-collaborative in nature (e.g., interviews, surveys, and other methods that involved only one researcher and one participant at a given time). Analysis of the levels of stakeholder engagement revealed a gap in studies that empowered their stakeholders in the quality checklist design process. Highly effective, clear, and standardized methodologies are needed for the design of quality checklists. Future work needs to explore how stakeholders can be empowered in the design process, and how different levels of stakeholder engagement might impact implementation outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":74465,"journal":{"name":"PLOS digital health","volume":"4 9","pages":"e0001015"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12440183/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Design approaches for developing quality checklists in healthcare organizations: A scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth Kwong, Amy Cole, Elizabeth Byrd, Dorothy Sippo, Fei Yu, Karthik Adapa, Christopher M Shea, Carlton Moore, Shiva Das, Lukasz Mazur\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pdig.0001015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Quality checklists have demonstrated benefits in healthcare and other high-reliability organizations, but there remains a gap in the understanding of design approaches and levels of stakeholder engagement in the development of these quality checklists. This scoping review aims to synthesize the current knowledge base regarding the use of various design approaches for developing quality checklists in healthcare. Secondary objectives are to explore theoretical frameworks, design principles, stakeholder involvement and engagement, and characteristics of the design methods used for developing quality checklists. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews 2020 checklist. Seven databases (PubMed, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore) were searched for studies using a comprehensive search strategy developed in collaboration with a health sciences librarian. Search terms included \\\"checklist\\\" and \\\"user-centered design\\\" and their related terms. The IAP2 Spectrum of Participation Framework was used to categorize studies by level of stakeholder engagement during data extraction. Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Twenty-three distinct design methods were identified that were predominantly non-collaborative in nature (e.g., interviews, surveys, and other methods that involved only one researcher and one participant at a given time). Analysis of the levels of stakeholder engagement revealed a gap in studies that empowered their stakeholders in the quality checklist design process. Highly effective, clear, and standardized methodologies are needed for the design of quality checklists. Future work needs to explore how stakeholders can be empowered in the design process, and how different levels of stakeholder engagement might impact implementation outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74465,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLOS digital health\",\"volume\":\"4 9\",\"pages\":\"e0001015\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12440183/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLOS digital health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0001015\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLOS digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0001015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

质量检查清单已经在医疗保健和其他高可靠性组织中得到了证明,但在对设计方法的理解和涉众参与这些质量检查清单开发的程度方面仍然存在差距。这个范围审查的目的是综合目前的知识库关于使用各种设计方法来开发质量检查清单在医疗保健。次要目标是探索理论框架、设计原则、利益相关者的参与和参与,以及用于开发质量检查清单的设计方法的特点。本次审查遵循了2020年系统审查的首选报告项目清单。七个数据库(PubMed, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, ACM数字图书馆和IEEE Xplore)使用与健康科学图书管理员合作开发的综合搜索策略进行了研究检索。搜索词包括“检查表”和“以用户为中心的设计”及其相关术语。IAP2参与谱框架用于根据数据提取过程中利益相关者参与程度对研究进行分类。29项研究符合本综述的纳入标准。我们确定了23种不同的设计方法,这些方法在本质上主要是非合作的(例如,访谈、调查和其他在给定时间只涉及一名研究人员和一名参与者的方法)。利益相关者参与水平的分析揭示了在质量检查表设计过程中授权其利益相关者的研究中的差距。设计质量检查表需要高效、清晰和标准化的方法。未来的工作需要探索如何在设计过程中授权利益相关者,以及不同层次的利益相关者参与如何影响实施结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Design approaches for developing quality checklists in healthcare organizations: A scoping review.

Design approaches for developing quality checklists in healthcare organizations: A scoping review.

Design approaches for developing quality checklists in healthcare organizations: A scoping review.

Design approaches for developing quality checklists in healthcare organizations: A scoping review.

Quality checklists have demonstrated benefits in healthcare and other high-reliability organizations, but there remains a gap in the understanding of design approaches and levels of stakeholder engagement in the development of these quality checklists. This scoping review aims to synthesize the current knowledge base regarding the use of various design approaches for developing quality checklists in healthcare. Secondary objectives are to explore theoretical frameworks, design principles, stakeholder involvement and engagement, and characteristics of the design methods used for developing quality checklists. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews 2020 checklist. Seven databases (PubMed, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore) were searched for studies using a comprehensive search strategy developed in collaboration with a health sciences librarian. Search terms included "checklist" and "user-centered design" and their related terms. The IAP2 Spectrum of Participation Framework was used to categorize studies by level of stakeholder engagement during data extraction. Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Twenty-three distinct design methods were identified that were predominantly non-collaborative in nature (e.g., interviews, surveys, and other methods that involved only one researcher and one participant at a given time). Analysis of the levels of stakeholder engagement revealed a gap in studies that empowered their stakeholders in the quality checklist design process. Highly effective, clear, and standardized methodologies are needed for the design of quality checklists. Future work needs to explore how stakeholders can be empowered in the design process, and how different levels of stakeholder engagement might impact implementation outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信