Abstract
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 methodology 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.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Yes
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed. This scoping review did not require IRB approval, ethics committee approval, nor patient/participant consent.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Not Applicable
