Population Total Chart
Immediately apparent with these results are the paucity of abstracts including designers, or other professionals from the creative disciplines from the Library Database Search. The number of articles describing Designers / Creative Disciplines amongst the Population is smaller, within these 13 articles including the Designers / Creative Disciplines code cover topics such as Assistive Technology (McCann, J and Bougourd, J (2008)), Health Service Design (Wolstenholme, D., et al. (2010); Lin, M, et al. (2011)), Health Informatics (Went, K, Gregor, P. and Ricketts, I. (2009); Korpela, M., et al. (1998); Hartswood, M, et al. (2003); Dwards, K., et al. (2012)), new methodologies of Design practice in health (Nykänen, E., et al. (2008); Mcdonagh, D. & Thomas, J. (2013); Horwitz, C. & Pentland, A. (2008)), Telehealth (Li, J., et al. (2006)), Medical Products (Grocott, P, Weir, H and Ram, M. (2007)), and Environments (Chan, P, Lai, T, and Wong, K. (2012)). This is perhaps reflected in the journals that are represented in the results, with a majority in the Human Computer Interaction (HCI) disciplines, an example of the application of the Not Specified code is Nixon, N (2013). In their article discuss how design thinking can be applied in health care, and while not specifically identifying a population within the abstract the work is still in scope for joining the health domain with the design domain, highlighting and example of when the Not Specified code was applied.

Figure 8 – Instances of the Population code per search
Instsances of the Population code per search

It is no surprise that the proportion of Designers / Creative Disciplines is higher in the Expert Network review than the results from the Library Database searches. The proportion of Healthcare Staff / Professionals is similar to the designers, suggesting that the use of terms such as ‘participation’, ‘collaboration’ and ‘user-centred design’ align with Arnstein’s (1969) definition. The use of the Not Specified code relates to projects that span multiple sites, and even abstracts that cover multiple projects. For instance, Partridge (2011) describes the design of a mobile infusion pump, with the abstract focussing on the artefact and the context, not the population.

It is extremely encouraging to see that the review supports the underlying principles of involvement and engagement in the abstracts identified. There are almost equal proportions of ‘people’ [Adults, Older people, Carers], healthcare professionals and designers engaged across the projects. This inclusion of expertise in the form of experience, professional ‘know how’ and design methodology and practice represents the best of what we know about mobilising knowledge into practice and demonstrates designs enabling role in the coproduction ideal espoused in many policy documents (Boyle et al 2010, Nesta 2009)*.

*Boyle, D., Coote, A., Sherwood, C., & Slay, J. (2010). RIGHT HERE ,RIGHT NOW, Taking co-production into the mainstream. Retrieved from http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/right_here_right_now.pdf THE CHALLENGE OF CO-PRODUCTION How equal partnerships between professionals and the public are crucial to improving public services 2009, Nesta, London. Available https://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/the_challenge_of_co-production.pdf accessed June 2015