The relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations: an integrative review
Objectives The concept of living labs as a research method to enhance participation of end-users in the development and implementation process of an innovation, gained increasing attention over the past decade. A living lab can be characterised by five key components: user-centric, cocreation, real-...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2022-06-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/6/e058630.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832590078849843200 |
|---|---|
| author | Sylvia J van der Burg-Vermeulen Nina Zipfel Carel T J Hulshof Angela G E M de Boer Bedra Horreh |
| author_facet | Sylvia J van der Burg-Vermeulen Nina Zipfel Carel T J Hulshof Angela G E M de Boer Bedra Horreh |
| author_sort | Sylvia J van der Burg-Vermeulen |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives The concept of living labs as a research method to enhance participation of end-users in the development and implementation process of an innovation, gained increasing attention over the past decade. A living lab can be characterised by five key components: user-centric, cocreation, real-life context, test innovation and open innovation. The purpose of this integrative literature review was to summarise the literature on the relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations.Methods An integrative literature review searching PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cinahl databases between January 2000 and December 2019. Studies were included when a living lab approach was used to implement innovations in healthcare and implementation outcomes were reported. Included studies evaluated at least one of the following implementation outcomes: acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration or sustainability. Quality was assessed based on a tool developed by Hawker et al.Results Of the 1173 retrieved articles, 30 studies were included of which 11 of high quality. Most studies involved a combination of patients/public (N=23) and providers (N=17) as key stakeholders in the living lab approach. Living lab components were mostly applied in the development phase of innovations (N=21). The majority of studies reported on achievement of acceptability (N=22) and feasibility (N=17) in terms of implementation outcomes. A broader spectrum of implementation outcomes was only evaluated in one study. We found that in particular six success factors were mentioned for the added-value of using living lab components for healthcare innovations: leadership, involvement, timing, openness, organisational support and ownership.Conclusions The living lab approach showed to contribute to successful implementation outcomes. This integrative review suggests that using a living lab approach fosters collaboration and participation in the development and implementation of new healthcare innovations.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020166895. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-c960ac06bf3a45a0a47c6006e180b2e1 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2022-06-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-c960ac06bf3a45a0a47c6006e180b2e12025-01-24T03:25:08ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552022-06-0112610.1136/bmjopen-2021-058630The relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations: an integrative reviewSylvia J van der Burg-Vermeulen0Nina Zipfel1Carel T J Hulshof2Angela G E M de Boer3Bedra Horreh4Department of Public and Occupational Health, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsPublic and Occupational health, Amsterdam UMC Locatie VUmc Divisie 10, Amsterdam, Noord Holland, The NetherlandsObjectives The concept of living labs as a research method to enhance participation of end-users in the development and implementation process of an innovation, gained increasing attention over the past decade. A living lab can be characterised by five key components: user-centric, cocreation, real-life context, test innovation and open innovation. The purpose of this integrative literature review was to summarise the literature on the relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations.Methods An integrative literature review searching PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cinahl databases between January 2000 and December 2019. Studies were included when a living lab approach was used to implement innovations in healthcare and implementation outcomes were reported. Included studies evaluated at least one of the following implementation outcomes: acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration or sustainability. Quality was assessed based on a tool developed by Hawker et al.Results Of the 1173 retrieved articles, 30 studies were included of which 11 of high quality. Most studies involved a combination of patients/public (N=23) and providers (N=17) as key stakeholders in the living lab approach. Living lab components were mostly applied in the development phase of innovations (N=21). The majority of studies reported on achievement of acceptability (N=22) and feasibility (N=17) in terms of implementation outcomes. A broader spectrum of implementation outcomes was only evaluated in one study. We found that in particular six success factors were mentioned for the added-value of using living lab components for healthcare innovations: leadership, involvement, timing, openness, organisational support and ownership.Conclusions The living lab approach showed to contribute to successful implementation outcomes. This integrative review suggests that using a living lab approach fosters collaboration and participation in the development and implementation of new healthcare innovations.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020166895.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/6/e058630.full |
| spellingShingle | Sylvia J van der Burg-Vermeulen Nina Zipfel Carel T J Hulshof Angela G E M de Boer Bedra Horreh The relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations: an integrative review BMJ Open |
| title | The relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations: an integrative review |
| title_full | The relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations: an integrative review |
| title_fullStr | The relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations: an integrative review |
| title_full_unstemmed | The relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations: an integrative review |
| title_short | The relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations: an integrative review |
| title_sort | relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations an integrative review |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/6/e058630.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sylviajvanderburgvermeulen therelationshipbetweenthelivinglabapproachandsuccessfulimplementationofhealthcareinnovationsanintegrativereview AT ninazipfel therelationshipbetweenthelivinglabapproachandsuccessfulimplementationofhealthcareinnovationsanintegrativereview AT careltjhulshof therelationshipbetweenthelivinglabapproachandsuccessfulimplementationofhealthcareinnovationsanintegrativereview AT angelagemdeboer therelationshipbetweenthelivinglabapproachandsuccessfulimplementationofhealthcareinnovationsanintegrativereview AT bedrahorreh therelationshipbetweenthelivinglabapproachandsuccessfulimplementationofhealthcareinnovationsanintegrativereview AT sylviajvanderburgvermeulen relationshipbetweenthelivinglabapproachandsuccessfulimplementationofhealthcareinnovationsanintegrativereview AT ninazipfel relationshipbetweenthelivinglabapproachandsuccessfulimplementationofhealthcareinnovationsanintegrativereview AT careltjhulshof relationshipbetweenthelivinglabapproachandsuccessfulimplementationofhealthcareinnovationsanintegrativereview AT angelagemdeboer relationshipbetweenthelivinglabapproachandsuccessfulimplementationofhealthcareinnovationsanintegrativereview AT bedrahorreh relationshipbetweenthelivinglabapproachandsuccessfulimplementationofhealthcareinnovationsanintegrativereview |