Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29880470›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2018

Methods to Evaluate the Effects of Internet-Based Digital Health Interventions for Citizens: Systematic Review of Reviews.

Paolo Zanaboni, Patrice Ngangue, Gisele Irène Claudine Mbemba, Thomas Roger Schopf, Trine Strand Bergmo, Marie-Pierre Gagnon

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
20.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Digital Patient Experience: Umbrella Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Adult patient access to electronic health records.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. The State of Evidence in Patient Portals: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020
    Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Paolo ZanaboniNorwegian Centre for E-health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-5469-092X
Patrice NgangueDepartment of Health Sciences, Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Rouyn Noranda, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5204-7420
Gisele Irène Claudine MbembaResearch Center of the CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6046-661X
Thomas Roger SchopfNorwegian Centre for E-health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-5688-5045
Trine Strand BergmoNorwegian Centre for E-health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-9580-7688
Marie-Pierre GagnonResearch Center of the CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0782-5457
University Hospital of North Norway · NOUniversité Laval · CAUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital health can empower citizens to manage their health and address health care system problems including poor access, uncoordinated care and increasing costs. Digital health interventions are typically complex interventions. Therefore, evaluations present methodological challenges.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to provide a systematic overview of the methods used to evaluate the effects of internet-based digital health interventions for citizens. Three research questions were addressed to explore methods regarding approaches (study design), effects and indicators.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of reviews of the methods used to measure the effects of internet-based digital health interventions for citizens. The protocol was developed a priori according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols and the Cochrane Collaboration methodology for overviews of reviews. Qualitative, mixed-method, and quantitative reviews published in English or French from January 2010 to October 2016 were included. We searched for published reviews in PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINHAL and Epistemonikos. We categorized the findings based on a thematic analysis of the reviews structured around study designs, indicators, types of interventions, effects and perspectives.

resultsA total of 20 unique reviews were included. The most common digital health interventions for citizens were patient portals and patients' access to electronic health records, covered by 10/20 (50%) and 6/20 (30%) reviews, respectively. Quantitative approaches to study design included observational study (15/20 reviews, 75%), randomized controlled trial (13/20 reviews, 65%), quasi-experimental design (9/20 reviews, 45%), and pre-post studies (6/20 reviews, 30%). Qualitative studies or mixed methods were reported in 13/20 (65%) reviews. Five main categories of effects were identified: (1) health and clinical outcomes, (2) psychological and behavioral outcomes, (3) health care utilization, (4) system adoption and use, and (5) system attributes. Health and clinical outcomes were measured with both general indicators and disease-specific indicators and reported in 11/20 (55%) reviews. Patient-provider communication and patient satisfaction were the most investigated psychological and behavioral outcomes, reported in 13/20 (65%) and 12/20 (60%) reviews, respectively. Evaluation of health care utilization was included in 8/20 (40%) reviews, most of which focused on the economic effects on the health care system.

conclusionsAlthough observational studies and surveys have provided evidence of benefits and satisfaction for patients, there is still little reliable evidence from randomized controlled trials of improved health outcomes. Future evaluations of digital health interventions for citizens should focus on specific populations or chronic conditions which are more likely to achieve clinically meaningful benefits and use high-quality approaches such as randomized controlled trials. Implementation research methods should also be considered. We identified a wide range of effects and indicators, most of which focused on patients as main end users. Implications for providers and the health system should also be included in evaluations or monitoring of digital health interventions.

Indexed as

Qualitative ResearchDelivery of Health CareHumansInternetPatient Satisfactionelectronic health recordsepidemiological methodsevaluation studies as topicpatient access to recordspatient portalsreview

Identifiers

PMID29880470
PMCPMC6013714
OpenAlexW2804205035

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.