Background:

Electronic health records (EHRs) are a promising approach to document and map (complex) health information gathered in health care worldwide. However, possible unintended consequences during use, which can occur owing to low usability or the lack of adaption to existing workflows (eg, high cognitive load), may pose a challenge. To prevent this, the involvement of users in the development of EHRs is crucial and growing. Overall, involvement is designed to be very multifaceted, for example, in terms of the timing, frequency, or even methods used to capture user preferences.

Objective:

Setting, users and their needs, and the context and practice of health care must be considered in the design and subsequent implementation of EHRs. Many different approaches to user involvement exist, each requiring a variety of methodological choices. The aim of the study was to provide an overview of the existing forms of user involvement and the circumstances they need and to provide support for the planning of new involvement processes.

Methods:

We conducted a scoping review to provide a database for future projects on which design of inclusion is worthwhile and to show the diversity of reporting. Using a very broad search string, we searched the PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus databases. In addition, we searched Google Scholar. Hits were screened according to scoping review methodology and then examined, focusing on methods and materials, participants, frequency and design of the development, and competencies of the researchers involved.

Results:

In total, 70 articles were included in the final analysis. There was a wide range of methods of involvement. Physicians and nurses were the most frequently included groups and, in most cases, were involved only once in the process. The approach of involvement (eg, co-design) was not specified in most of the studies (44/70, 63%). Further qualitative deficiencies in the reporting were evident in the presentation of the competences of members of the research and development teams. Think-aloud sessions, interviews, and prototypes were frequently used.

Conclusions:

This review provides insights into the diversity of health care professionals’ involvement in the development of EHRs. It provides an overview of the different approaches in various fields of health care. However, it also shows the necessity of considering quality standards in the development of EHRs together with future users and the need for reporting this in future studies.