Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27630020›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2016

Understanding factors affecting patient and public engagement and recruitment to digital health interventions: a systematic review of qualitative studies.

Siobhan O'Connor, Peter Hanlon, Catherine A O'Donnell, Sonia Garcia, Julie Glanville, Frances S Mair

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 385 papers, 22 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
385citing papers in PubMed, 22 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

385 citing papers in PubMed, 22 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

325 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Siobhan O'ConnorGeneral Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, 1 Horslethill Rd, Glasgow, G12 9LX, UK.
Peter HanlonGeneral Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, 1 Horslethill Rd, Glasgow, G12 9LX, UK.
Catherine A O'DonnellGeneral Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, 1 Horslethill Rd, Glasgow, G12 9LX, UK.
Sonia GarciaYork Health Economics Consortium Ltd, York, UK.
Julie GlanvilleYork Health Economics Consortium Ltd, York, UK.
Frances S MairGeneral Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, 1 Horslethill Rd, Glasgow, G12 9LX, UK. Frances.Mair@glasgow.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNumerous types of digital health interventions (DHIs) are available to patients and the public but many factors affect their ability to engage and enrol in them. This systematic review aims to identify and synthesise the qualitative literature on barriers and facilitators to engagement and recruitment to DHIs to inform future implementation efforts.

methodsPubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus and the ACM Digital Library were searched for English language qualitative studies from 2000 - 2015 that discussed factors affecting engagement and enrolment in a range of DHIs (e.g. 'telemedicine', 'mobile applications', 'personal health record', 'social networking'). Text mining and additional search strategies were used to identify 1,448 records. Two reviewers independently carried out paper screening, quality assessment, data extraction and analysis. Data was analysed using framework synthesis, informed by Normalization Process Theory, and Burden of Treatment Theory helped conceptualise the interpretation of results.

resultsNineteen publications were included in the review. Four overarching themes that affect patient and public engagement and enrolment in DHIs emerged; 1) personal agency and motivation; 2) personal life and values; 3) the engagement and recruitment approach; and 4) the quality of the DHI. The review also summarises engagement and recruitment strategies used. A preliminary DIgital Health EnGagement MOdel (DIEGO) was developed to highlight the key processes involved. Existing knowledge gaps are identified and a number of recommendations made for future research. Study limitations include English language publications and exclusion of grey literature.

conclusionThis review summarises and highlights the complexity of digital health engagement and recruitment processes and outlines issues that need to be addressed before patients and the public commit to digital health and it can be implemented effectively. More work is needed to create successful engagement strategies and better quality digital solutions that are personalised where possible and to gain clinical accreditation and endorsement when appropriate. More investment is also needed to improve computer literacy and ensure technologies are accessible and affordable for those who wish to sign up to them. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42015029846.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsMedical Informatics ApplicationsMobile ApplicationsQualitative ResearchTelemedicineHumansBarrierDigital healtheHealthElectronic health recordsEngagementFacilitatormHealthMobile applicationsRecruitmentTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID27630020
PMCPMC5024516

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.