Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30012548›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2018

The Development of Complex Digital Health Solutions: Formative Evaluation Combining Different Methodologies.

Anne Lee, Marianne Sandvei, Hans Christian Asmussen, Marie Skougaard, Joanne Macdonald, Jakub Zavada, Henning Bliddal, Peter C Taylor, Henrik Gudbergsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Peer assessment platform of clinical skills in undergraduate medical education.The Journal of international medical research · 2019
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
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

9 authors.

Anne Lee *Centre for Innovative Medical Technology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3432-0435
Marianne Sandvei *Research Unit of User Perspectives, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7992-8554
Hans Christian Asmussen *The Parker Institute, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Frederiksberg, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3862-724X
Marie Skougaard *The Parker Institute, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Frederiksberg, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2676-4749
Joanne Macdonald *Botnar Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences., University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2499-7418
Jakub Zavada *Institute of Rheumatology, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9802-6545
Henning BliddalThe Parker Institute, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Frederiksberg, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7951-1668
Peter C TaylorBotnar Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences., University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7766-6167
Henrik Gudbergsen *The Parker Institute, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Frederiksberg, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2273-5337

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe development of digital health solutions for current health care settings requires an understanding of the complexities of the health care system, organizational setting, and stakeholder groups and of the underlying interplay between stakeholders and the technology. The digital health solution was founded on the basis of an information and communication technology platform and point-of-care devices enabling home-based monitoring of disease progression and treatment outcome for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

objectiveThe aim of this paper is to describe and discuss the applicability of an iterative evaluation process in guiding the development of a digital health solution as a technical and organizational entity in three different health care systems.

methodsThe formative evaluation comprised the methodologies of contextual understanding, participatory design, and feasibility studies and included patients, healthcare professionals, and hardware and software developers. In total, the evaluation involved 45 patients and 25 health care professionals at 3 clinical sites in Europe.

resultsThe formative evaluation served as ongoing and relevant input to the development process of the digital health solution. Through initial field studies key stakeholder groups were identified and knowledge obtained about the different health care systems, the professional competencies involved in routine RA treatment, the clinics' working procedures, and the use of communication technologies. A theory-based stakeholder evaluation achieved a multifaceted picture of the ideas and assumptions held by stakeholder groups at the three clinical sites, which also represented the diversity of three different language zones and cultures. Experiences and suggestions from the patients and health care professionals were sought through participatory design processes and real-life testing and actively used for adjusting the visual, conceptual, and practical design of the solution. The learnings captured through these activities aided in forming the solution and in developing a common understanding of the overall vision and aim of this solution. During this process, the 3 participating sites learned from each other's feed-back with the ensuing multicultural inspiration. Moreover, these efforts also enabled the consortium to identify a 'tipping point' during a pilot study, revealing serious challenges and a need for further development of the solution. We achieved valuable learning during the evaluation activities, and the remaining challenges have been clarified more extensively than a single-site development would have discovered. The further obstacles have been defined as has the need to resolve these before designing and conducting a real-life clinical test to assess the outcome from a digital health solution for RA treatment.

conclusionsA formative evaluation process with ongoing involvement of stakeholder groups from 3 different cultures and countries have helped to inform and influence the development of a novel digital health solution, and provided constructive input and feedback enabling the consortium to control the development process.

Indexed as

eHealthformative evaluationintervention theoriesparticipatory designstakeholder participationtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID30012548
PMCPMC6066635

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.