Developing SysteMatic: Prevention, precision and equity by design for people living with multiple long-term conditions.

Background: The number of individuals living with multiple (≥2) long term conditions (MLTCs) is a growing global challenge. People with MLTCs experience reduced life expectancy, complex healthcare needs, higher healthcare utilisation, increased burden of treatment, poorer quality of life and higher mortality. Evolving technologies including artificial intelligence (AI) could address some of these challenges by enabling more preventive and better integrated care, however, they may also exacerbate inequities. Objective: We aim to deliver an equity focused, action-ready plan for transforming MLTC prevention and care, co-designed by people with lived experience of MLTCs and delivered through an Innovation Hub: SysteMatic. Design: Our Hub is being co-designed by people with lived experience of MLTCs, practitioners, academics and industry partners in Liverpool and Glasgow, UK. This work builds on research into mental-physical health interdependence across the life-course, and on mobilisation of large-scale quantitative data and technology validation in health and care systems serving deprived populations in Glasgow and Liverpool. We work with 3 population segments: 1) Children & Families: facing psychosocial and environmental challenges with lifetime impacts; 2). Working Life: people with poorly integrated mental, physical and social care; and 3) Pre-Frailty: older people with MLTCs. We aim to understand their experiences and in parallel look at routinely collected health data on people with MLTCs to help us identify targets for intervention. We are co-identifying opportunities for systems transformation with our patient partners, healthcare professionals and through discussion with companies and public-sector organisations. We are co-defining 3/5/7-year MLTC innovation/transition targets and sustainable learning approaches. Discussion: SysteMatic will deliver an actionable MLTC Innovation Hub strategic plan, with investment from the UK National Health Service, civic health and care partners, universities, and industry, enabling feedback of well-translated, patient and public prioritised problems into the engineering, physical, health and social sciences to underpin future equitable innovation delivery.

Application and evolution of design in oral health: A systematic mapping study with an interactive evidence map.

OBJECTIVES: There is increasing recognition of the value and capabilities of design in healthcare. Beyond the development of medical devices, design is increasingly being applied to intangible, complex and systemic healthcare problems. However, there is limited evidence on the use of design specifically in the field of oral health. This systematic mapping study aims to collate and catalogue evidence of design in oral health. METHODS: A systematic search of academic databases and grey literature was performed. Duplicate results were removed, and publications relating to the same project were grouped. Reviewers from design and oral health independently screened a sample of the dataset. Projects of both relevance to oral health, and with input from a designer or clear implementation of a design methodology or approach were included. Projects were coded and plotted on a novel interactive evidence map. RESULTS: 119 design and oral health projects were included between 1973 and 2022. Interventional (n = 94, 79%), empirical (n = 46, 39%), methodological (n = 35, 29%) and theoretical (n = 7, 6%) design contributions were identified across the projects. The projects were categorized by four orders of design: first-graphics (n = 6, 5%), second-products (n = 41, 34%), third-interactions (n = 70, 59%), and fourth-systems (n = 2, 2%). Design was found in a diverse range of contexts in oral health; most commonly being relevant to general patients (n = 61, 51%), and for use in general dental practice (n = 56, 47%). Further design outcome categories (digital material; printed material; object; room or space; apparel; process; smart device; tangible interface; graphical interface; virtual reality; service; policy; system) and oral health themes (oral health literacy; oral care training; dental clinic design; dental instruments and equipment; personal oral care; dental appliance; clinician health and productivity; clinical information systems; informed consent; oral health promotion and prevention; oral care training; patient interactions and experience) were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The novel interactive evidence map of design in oral health created enables ongoing and open-ended multivariant documentation and analysis of the evidence, as well as identification of strategic opportunities. Future research and policy implications include; recognition and engagement with the full capabilities of design; integration of design experts; fostering inclusive engagement and collaboration; disentangling patient and public involvement; advancing human-centred systems approaches; adopting design-led approaches for policy-making.

An opportunity for inclusive and human-centred design.

Challenges and trends, such as person-centred care, demographic shifts and technological advancements, are transforming oral health systems. Inclusive design and human-centred design are disciplines highly relevant and potentially instrumental to these oral healthcare transformations. This paper provides an overview of the definitions and characteristics of inclusive and human-centred design which centre on understanding people's multifaceted needs, expectations, behaviours and relationships, and engaging with diverse and often excluded populations. Design's broad capabilities are outlined across outcome and contribution types and the potential role of inclusive and human-centred design to oral health is explored by outlining its relevance to key transformational, societal and technological shifts. Finally, barriers and drivers to the adoption of inclusive and human-centred design in oral health are discussed around three themes: awareness and understanding of the role and value of design; disciplinary differences; and the wider healthcare systems context.