Objective: This scoping review seeks to chart current literature on the use of design thinking and co-design approaches within dentistry and oral health, determine used tools and frameworks, assess reported outcomes, and examine challenges and opportunities. Methods: The scoping review was done using the scoping review framework of JBI approach by Peters et al. (2015) and the checklist used was PRISMA- Scr. Three tier search strategy was employed in which a preliminary search was carried out for checking for existing scoping and systematic reviews in J B I Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL and EPPI. After which an initial search was done 2 data bases using broad key words. The initial search result was used to do an exhaustive search was done on 5 search engines with more key words and also included the reports etc . The articles that were published in English for last ten years were screened. Data were drawn out and subjected to thematic analysis. Results: Studies across dental education, clinical service design, patient engagement, and digital health were included. Design thinking models (e.g., Stanford’s 5-step model and Double Diamond) and codesign methods (e.g., experience-based co-design) were applied to develop empathetic, user informed interventions. Design outcomes categories and oral health themes were identified. Benefits reported included improved patient satisfaction, dental workflow improvements, culturally adapted health communication, and novel educational practices and materials. Challenges of limited awareness, lack of time, and integration challenges were, however, identified. Conclusion: Co-design and design thinking offer exciting, yet underutilized, chances to revolutionize dental practice, education, and public health. To incorporate these techniques into common place oral health strategies, more interdisciplinary cooperation, capacity building, curriculum reforms, teaching methodological innovations and outcome-focused research are required.
Balappanavar et al. (Sun,) studied this question.