Human-centered design is about understanding human needs and how design can respond to these needs. With its systemic humane approach and creativity, human-centered design can play an essential role in dealing with today's care challenges. 'Design’ refers to both the process of designing and the outcome of that process, which includes physical products, services, procedures, strategies, and policies. In this paper, we address the three key characteristics of human-centered design, focusing on its implementation in healthcare: (1) developing an understanding of people and their needs; (2) engaging stakeholders from early on and throughout the design process; (3) adopting a systems approach by systematically addressing interactions between the micro, meso and macro-levels of sociotechnical care systems, and the transition from individual interests to collective interests.

Background The number of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients and related treatment costs are rapidly increasing. Consequentially, more cost-effective and efficient strategies for the treatment of T2DM are needed. One such strategy is improving patients’ self-management. As patients are more and more expected to self-manage their disease, it is important to provide them with suitable self-management support. This way, success of self-management will increase and complications and related costs of T2DM can be reduced. Currently, self-management support is developed mainly from the perspective of health professionals and caregivers, rather than patients. This research focused on gaining a better understanding of patients’ perspectives on self-management and support. Methods Semi-structured interviews, preceded by preparatory assignments, were conducted with ten patients with T2DM treated in Dutch primary care. Results We found that patients experience ‘active’ self-management when recently diagnosed. As time progresses and no problems occur, patients do not experience their disease-related behaviour as self-management. Diabetes has ‘just’ become part of their daily life, now including new routines taking diabetes into account. Conclusions With this knowledge, support solutions can be designed and implemented that better fit the needs, preferences and abilities of patients with T2DM. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4384-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background The adoption and use of technology have significantly changed health care delivery. Patient experience has become a significant factor in the entire spectrum of patient-centered health care delivery. Digital health facilitates further improvement and empowerment of patient experiences. Therefore, the design of digital health is served by insights into the barriers to and facilitators of digital patient experience (PEx). Objective This study aimed to systematically review the influencing factors and design considerations of PEx in digital health from the literature and generate design guidelines for further improvement of PEx in digital health. Methods We performed an umbrella systematic review following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology. We searched Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. Two rounds of small random sampling (20%) were independently reviewed by 2 reviewers who evaluated the eligibility of the articles against the selection criteria. Two-round interrater reliability was assessed using the Fleiss-Cohen coefficient (k1=0.88 and k2=0.80). Thematic analysis was applied to analyze the extracted data based on a small set of a priori categories. Results The search yielded 173 records, of which 45 (26%) were selected for data analysis. Findings and conclusions showed a great diversity; most studies presented a set of themes (19/45, 42%) or descriptive information only (16/45, 36%). The digital PEx–related influencing factors were classified into 9 categories: patient capability, patient opportunity, patient motivation, intervention technology, intervention functionality, intervention interaction design, organizational environment, physical environment, and social environment. These can have three types of impacts: positive, negative, or double edged. We captured 4 design constructs (personalization, information, navigation, and visualization) and 3 design methods (human-centered or user-centered design, co-design or participatory design, and inclusive design) as design considerations. Conclusions We propose the following definition for digital PEx: “Digital patient experience is the sum of all interactions affected by a patient’s behavioral determinants, framed by digital technologies, and shaped by organizational culture, that influence patient perceptions across the continuum of care channeling digital health.” In this study, we constructed a design and evaluation framework that contains 4 phases—define design, define evaluation, design ideation, and design evaluation—and 9 design guidelines to help digital health designers and developers address digital PEx throughout the entire design process. Finally, our review suggests 6 directions for future digital PEx–related research.