Abstract
BACKGROUND: The co-design of health technology enables patient-centeredness and can help reduce barriers to technology use. OBJECTIVE: The study objectives were to identify what remote patient monitoring (RPM) technology has been co-designed for inpatients and how effective it is, to identify and describe the co-design approaches used to develop RPM technologies and in which contexts they emerge, and to identify and describe barriers and facilitators of the co-design process. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of co-designed RPM technologies for inpatients or for the immediate postdischarge period and assessed (1) their effectiveness in improving health outcomes, (2) the co-design approaches used, and (3) barriers and facilitators to the co-design process. Eligible records included those involving stakeholders co-designing RPM technology for use in the inpatient setting or during the immediate postdischarge period. Searches were limited to the English language within the last 10 years. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Science Citation Index (Web of Science) in April 2023. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for quasi-experimental studies and qualitative research. Findings are presented narratively. RESULTS: We screened 3334 reports, and 17 projects met the eligibility criteria. Interventions were designed for pre- and postsurgical monitoring (n=6), intensive care monitoring (n=2), posttransplant monitoring (n=3), rehabilitation (n=4), acute inpatients (n=1), and postpartum care (n=1). No projects evaluated the efficacy of their co-designed RPM technology. Three pilot studies reported clinical outcomes; their risk of bias was low to moderate. Pilot evaluations (11/17) also focused on nonclinical outcomes such as usability, usefulness, feasibility, and satisfaction. Common co-design approaches included needs assessment or ideation (16/17), prototyping (15/17), and pilot testing (11/17). The most commonly reported challenge to the co-design process was the generalizability of findings, closely followed by time and resource constraints and participant bias. Stakeholders' perceived value was the most frequently reported enabler of co-design. Other enablers included continued stakeholder engagement and methodological factors (ie, the use of flexible mixed method approaches and prototyping). CONCLUSIONS: Co-design methods can help enhance interventions' relevance, usability, and adoption. While included studies measured usability, satisfaction, and acceptability-critical factors for successful implementation and uptake-we could not determine the clinical effectiveness of co-designed RPM technologies. A stronger commitment to clinical evaluation is needed. Studies' use of diverse co-design approaches can foster stakeholder inclusivity, but greater standardization in co-design terminology is needed to improve the quality and consistency of co-design research.