BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of DH applications has outpaced research and practice in digital health (DH) evaluations. Patient experience (PEx) was reported as one of the challenges facing the health system by the World Health Organization. To generate evidence on DH and promote the appropriate integration and use of technologies, a standard evaluation of PEx in DH is required. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to systematically identify evaluation timing considerations (ie, when to measure), evaluation indicators (ie, what to measure), and evaluation approaches (ie, how to measure) with regard to digital PEx. The overall aim of this study is to generate an evaluation guide for further improving digital PEx evaluation. METHODS: This is a 2-phase study parallel to our previous study. In phase 1, literature reviews related to PEx in DH were systematically searched from Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. Two independent raters conducted 2 rounds of paper screening, including title and abstract screening and full-text screening, and assessed the interrater reliability for 20% (round 1: 23/115 and round 2: 12/58) random samples using the Fleiss-Cohen coefficient (round 1: k1=0.88 and round 2: k2=0.80). When reaching interrater reliability (k>0.60), TW conducted the rest of the screening process, leaving any uncertainties for group discussions. Overall, 38% (45/119) of the articles were considered eligible for further thematic analysis. In phase 2, to check if there were any meaningful novel insights that would change our conclusions, we performed an updated literature search in which we collected 294 newly published reviews, of which 102 (34.7%) were identified as eligible articles. We considered them to have no important changes to our original results on the research objectives. Therefore, they were not integrated into the synthesis of this review and were used as supplementary materials. RESULTS: Our review highlights 5 typical evaluation objectives that serve 5 stakeholder groups separately. We identified a set of key evaluation timing considerations and classified them into 3 categories: intervention maturity stages, timing of the evaluation, and timing of data collection. Information on evaluation indicators of digital PEx was identified and summarized into 3 categories (intervention outputs, patient outcomes, and health care system impact), 9 themes, and 22 subthemes. A set of evaluation theories, common study designs, data collection methods and instruments, and data analysis approaches was captured, which can be used or adapted to evaluate digital PEx. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings enabled us to generate an evaluation guide to help DH intervention researchers, designers, developers, and program evaluators evaluate digital PEx. Finally, we propose 6 directions for encouraging further digital PEx evaluation research and practice to address the challenge of poor PEx.

Design is expanding its influence on shaping future healthcare. Ideally, designers apply human-centered design and human factors that introduce theory, principles, and methods to design to optimize people’s healthcare experiences in both digital and non-digital environments. To discuss and implement experience design in healthcare, consensus about experience design in healthcare is needed. Objectives: Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate designers’ views on experience design in health, and to uncover their understanding about three experience design concepts, i.e., user experience (UX), patient experience (PEx), and digital patient experience (dPEx). We conducted online semi-structured interviews study with convenience samples who met the eligibility. We used ATLAS.ti for an in-depth data coding following thematic analysis. 24 international designers of digital health solutions, either in industry or in academia took part in the interviews. We found the similarities and differences mentioned between healthcare design and non-healthcare design relate to (1) design principles, (2) user attributes, and (3) design contexts. Furthermore, the differences between UX, PEx, and dPEx can be mapped on five dimensions: people, contexts, purposes, means, and usage scenarios. These insights can help designers and human factors specialists build a common design language for experience design in healthcare. Our study can also assist designers and human factors specialists with experience design in digital health by pointing out the areas where design thinking generally is appropriate and the places where particular expertise in healthcare design is needed.

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.

Since Covid-19, digital health interventions (DHIs) have been embraced as never before. The pandemic led to many new challenges, including the patient experience in digital health care delivery. In this literature study, we identified and synthesized factors that impact patient experience in digital health (dPEx), and reviewed the methods and strategies relevant to its design and implementation. We conducted an umbrella review including 15 reviews representing 543 studies. Four themes were identified that describe design-relevant factors that impact dPEx: individual context, content, technical issues, and design features. We propose a preliminary framework to explain the relationship between each factor and support user-centered design efforts. Further research is needed to identify which factors have the most impact.

To support developing new playful product for older adults, this paper briefly reviewed a range of existing playful products, and describes how they could be strategically deconstructed and refactored from the perspective of the five interaction elements (person, purpose, means, contexts, and actions). A design framework combining case analogies and persona methods was proposed. The formalized design strategy of persona and case-based interaction elements analysis system that mainly considers two parts in the design process which are called ‘inspiration cases’ and ‘typical users’ in this paper. The strategy can be applied to the process of re-designing a specific class of playful products, such as tangible toys or digital games, for particular older adults.