SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2018
Evidence-Based Evaluation of eHealth Interventions: Systematic Literature Review.
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 89 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
89 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Digital Biomarker-Based Interventions: Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- The Effectiveness of Web-Based Interventions to Promote Health Behaviour Change in Adolescents: A Systematic Review.Nutrients · 2022Pooled it
- eHealth in Geriatric Rehabilitation: Systematic Review of Effectiveness, Feasibility, and Usability.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- Online Communities as a Driver for Patient Empowerment: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- Mapping the Evidence on the Effectiveness of Telemedicine Interventions in Diabetes, Dyslipidemia, and Hypertension: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- EHealth intervention for quality of life in long-term breast cancer survivors: randomized controlled trial.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Trial
- Enabling and hindering aspects of the i²TransHealth e-health intervention for transgender and gender diverse people in Germany: a qualitative process evaluation.BMC health services research · 2026Trial
- User journey method: a case study for improving digital intervention use measurement.BMC health services research · 2025Trial
- The web-based Pleasure&Pregnancy programme in the treatment of unexplained infertility: a randomized controlled trial.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2024Trial
- Effects of eHealth interventions on depression, anxiety, quality of life, and post-traumatic stress symptoms among parents of children with cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Review
- Validating DigiHEALTHQUAL for measuring digital health effects on service quality in outpatient care in Germany.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Current Practices and a Novel Operational Framework for Planning Research on Digital Health Promotion Interventions From Development to Implementation: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Which transgender and gender diverse groups benefit most from E-health? Subgroup analyses of the randomized controlled trial iInternational journal of transgender health · 2026Article
- User Preferences for an Image-Assisted Dietary Recall: Qualitative Study Comparing 3 Dietary Assessment Methods.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Systematic review of dynamically tailored eHealth interventions targeting physical activity and healthy diet in chronic disease.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Feasibility and Acceptability of a Mobile App to Improve Quality of Life of Long-Term Breast Cancer Survivors: Single-Arm Pre-Post Intervention Pilot Study.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- A study protocol on assessing the acceptance and effectiveness of a digital adherence technology for TB preventive treatment in Bangladesh.BMC public health · 2025Observational
- Service Quality Assessment of Digital Health Solutions in Outpatient Care: Qualitative Item Repository Development Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Examining Practices Related to Ethical Aspects in eHealth Evaluation Research: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- [Barriers and facilitators of two pilot projects of telemonitoring aimed at patients with diabetesRevista de salud publica (Bogota, Colombia) · 2025Article
29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUntil now, the use of technology in health care was driven mostly by the assumptions about the benefits of electronic health (eHealth) rather than its evidence. It is noticeable that the magnitude of evidence of effectiveness and efficiency of eHealth is not proportionate to the number of interventions that are regularly conducted. Reliable evidence generated through comprehensive evaluation of eHealth interventions may accelerate the growth of eHealth for long-term successful implementation and help to experience eHealth benefits in an enhanced way.
objectiveThis study aimed to understand how the evidence of effectiveness and efficiency of eHealth can be generated through evaluation. Hence, we aim to discern (1) how evaluation is conducted in distinct eHealth intervention phases, (2) the aspects of effectiveness and efficiency that are typically evaluated during eHealth interventions, and (3) how eHealth interventions are evaluated in practice.
methodsA systematic literature review was conducted to explore the evaluation methods for eHealth interventions. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. We searched Google Scholar and Scopus for the published papers that addressed the evaluation of eHealth or described an eHealth intervention study. A qualitative analysis of the selected papers was conducted in several steps.
resultsWe intended to see how the process of evaluation unfolds in distinct phases of an eHealth intervention. We revealed that in practice and in several conceptual papers, evaluation is performed at the end of the intervention. There are some studies that discuss the importance of conducting evaluation throughout the intervention; however, in practice, we found no case study that followed this. For our second research question, we discovered aspects of efficiency and effectiveness that are proposed to be assessed during interventions. The aspects that were recurrent in the conceptual papers include clinical, human and social, organizational, technological, cost, ethical and legal, and transferability. However, the case studies reviewed only evaluate the clinical and human and social aspects. At the end of the paper, we discussed a novel approach to look into the evaluation. Our intention was to stir up a discussion around this approach with the hope that it might be able to gather evidence in a comprehensive and credible way.
conclusionsThe importance of evidence in eHealth has not been discussed as rigorously as have the diverse evaluation approaches and evaluation frameworks. Further research directed toward evidence-based evaluation can not only improve the quality of intervention studies but also facilitate successful long-term implementation of eHealth in general. We conclude that the development of more robust and comprehensive evaluation of eHealth studies or an improved validation of evaluation methods could ease the transferability of results among similar studies. Thus, the resources can be used for supplementary research in eHealth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.