Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25524892›Full record

ReviewJMIR research protocols2014

"Real-world" practical evaluation strategies: a review of telehealth evaluation.

Stephen Agboola, Timothy M Hale, Caitlin Masters, Joseph Kvedar, Kamal Jethwani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR research protocols, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Telehealth for musculoskeletal physiotherapy.Musculoskeletal science & practice · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Improved FMEA Methods for Proactive Health Care Risk Assessment of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of COVID-19 Remote Patient Telemonitoring.American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality
    Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Stephen AgboolaPartners Healthcare Center for Connected Health, Boston, MA, United States. sagboola@partners.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2161-8091

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently, the increasing interest in telehealth and significant technological breakthroughs of the past decade create favorable conditions for the widespread adoption of telehealth services. Therefore, expectations are high that telehealth can help alleviate prevailing challenges in health care delivery. However, in order to translate current research to policy and facilitate adoption by patients and health care providers, there is need for compelling evidence of the effectiveness of telehealth interventions. Such evidence is gathered from rigorously designed research studies, which may not always be practical in many real-world settings.

objectiveOur aim was to summarize current telehealth evaluation strategies and challenges and to outline practical approaches to conduct evaluation in real-world settings using one of our previously reported telehealth initiatives, the Diabetes Connect program, as a case study.

methodsWe reviewed commonly used current evaluation frameworks and strategies, as well as best practices based on successful evaluative efforts to date to address commonly encountered challenges in telehealth evaluation. These challenges in telehealth evaluation and commonly used frameworks are described relevant to the evaluation of Diabetes Connect, a 12-month Web-based blood glucose monitoring program.

resultsDesigners of telehealth evaluation frameworks must give careful consideration to the elements of planning, implementation, and impact assessment of interventions. Evaluating performance at each of these phases is critical to the overall success of an intervention. Although impact assessment occurs at the end of a program, our review shows that it should begin at the point of problem definition. Critical to the success of an evaluative strategy is early planning that involves all stakeholders to identify the overall goals of the program and key measures of success at each phase of the program life cycle. This strategy should enable selection of an appropriate evaluation strategy and measures to aid in the ongoing development and implementation of telehealth and provide better evidence of program impact.

conclusionsWe recommend a pragmatic, multi-method, multi-phase approach to telehealth evaluation that is flexible and can be adapted to the characteristics and challenges unique to each telehealth program.

Indexed as

diabetes mellituseHealthevaluationevaluation frameworktechnologytelehealth

Identifiers

PMID25524892
PMCPMC4275475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.