The code for the Method describes the form of design (or related practice) used in the work described. This included some aggregation of methods into umbrella terms, as with the Usercentred Design code.

Where an abstract overtly mentioned the use of ‘users’ as inextricably linked to the method, it was coded as User-centred Design in the absence of another stated method.

Quantitative Methods are perhaps surprising to find when discussing design in health projects, but the focus with the abstracts here was on the triangulation of research by incorporating different search methods. The methods outlined in the abstract were coded for their significance in the abstract, and this does not necessarily preclude the use of other user-centred approaches in the project work. An example of the use of qualitative methods in the design process is the use of ethnographic approaches, or other methods of enquiry that come from the social sciences. The abstracts are coded by the author’s decision to highlight methods used. An example of this is the MOMTech project for Maternal Obesity (Anon, MOMtech 2015), which used extensive interview and focus group techniques alongside design practice. Finally, the use of the code application Critical Design is applied to products involving Artists, or designer-makers employing methods that fall outside the boundaries of User-centred Design, or any of the other code applications here. For example, Zellweger (2013) in Rituals of Self Design – creating artefacts in conjunction with Plastic Surgeons.

The Not Specified code application can relate to projects that span multiple sites, such as the Better Services By Design (BOSOP) project (Anon, BOSOP Patient experience (2015), and the Health Design & Technology Institute (HDTI) (HDTI, Teggy) work referenced here.