Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30099392›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Electronic patient-generated health data to facilitate prevention and health promotion: a scoping review protocol.

Vasileios Nittas, Margot Mütsch, Frederic Ehrler, Milo Alan Puhan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The role of artificial intelligence for the application of integrating electronic health records and patient-generated data in clinical decision support.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  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

4 authors.

Vasileios NittasEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6685-8275
Margot MütschEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Frederic EhrlerDivision of Medical Information Sciences, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Milo Alan PuhanEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7284-1317

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRapidly expanding digital innovations transform the perception, reception and provision of health services. Simultaneously, health system challenges underline the need for patient-centred, empowering and citizen-engaging care, which facilitates a focus on prevention and health promotion. Through enhanced patient-engagement, patient-provider interactions and reduced information gaps, electronic patient-generated health data (PGHD) may facilitate both patient-centeredness and preventive scare. Despite that, comprehensive knowledge syntheses on their utilisation for prevention and health promotion purposes are lacking. The review described in this protocol aims to fill that gap. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our methodology is guided by Arksey and O' Malley's methodological framework for scoping reviews, as well as its advanced version by Levac, Colquhoun and O'Brien. Seven electronic databases will be systematically searched using predefined keywords. Key electronic journals will be hand searched, while reference lists of included documents and grey literature sources will be screened thoroughly. Two independent reviewers will complete study selection and data extraction. One of the team's senior research members will act as a third reviewer and make the final decision on disputed documents. We will include literature with a focus on electronic PGHD and linked to prevention and health promotion. Literature on prevention that is driven by existing discomfort or disability goes beyond the review's scope and will be excluded. Analysis will be narrative and guided by Shapiro ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The scoping review described in this protocol aims to establish a baseline understanding of electronic PGHD generation, collection, communication, sharing, interpretation, utilisation, context and impact for preventive purposes. The chosen methodology is based on the use of publicly available information and does not require ethical approval. Review findings will be disseminated in digital health conferences and symposia. Results will be published and additionally shared with relevant local and national authorities.

Indexed as

Health PromotionPatient ParticipationChronic DiseaseHumansInformation DisseminationPatient Generated Health DataPublic HealthScoping Reviews as Topicinformation managementinformation technologypreventive medicinetelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID30099392
PMCPMC6089308

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.