Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31710296›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019

The Service of Research Analytics to Optimize Digital Health Evidence Generation: Multilevel Case Study.

Quynh Pham, James Shaw, Plinio P Morita, Emily Seto, Jennifer N Stinson, Joseph A Cafazzo

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Evaluating clinical decision support software (CDSS): challenges for robust evidence generation.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Quynh PhamInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0540-4181
James ShawInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9522-0756
Plinio P MoritaInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9515-6478
Emily SetoInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8723-5915
Jennifer N StinsonInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9969-8052
Joseph A CafazzoInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3114-4440

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe widespread adoption of digital health interventions for chronic disease self-management has catalyzed a paradigm shift in the selection of methodologies used to evidence them. Recently, the application of digital health research analytics has emerged as an efficient approach to evaluate these data-rich interventions. However, there is a growing mismatch between the promising evidence base emerging from analytics mediated trials and the complexity of introducing these novel research methods into evaluative practice.

objectiveThis study aimed to generate transferable insights into the process of implementing research analytics to evaluate digital health interventions. We sought to answer the following two research questions: (1) how should the service of research analytics be designed to optimize digital health evidence generation? and (2) what are the challenges and opportunities to scale, spread, and sustain this service in evaluative practice?

methodsWe conducted a qualitative multilevel embedded single case study of implementing research analytics in evaluative practice that comprised a review of the policy and regulatory climate in Ontario (macro level), a field study of introducing a digital health analytics platform into evaluative practice (meso level), and interviews with digital health innovators on their perceptions of analytics and evaluation (microlevel).

resultsThe practice of research analytics is an efficient and effective means of supporting digital health evidence generation. The introduction of a research analytics platform to evaluate effective engagement with digital health interventions into a busy research lab was ultimately accepted by research staff, became routinized in their evaluative practice, and optimized their existing mechanisms of log data analysis and interpretation. The capacity for research analytics to optimize digital health evaluations is highest when there is (1) a collaborative working relationship between research client and analytics service provider, (2) a data-driven research agenda, (3) a robust data infrastructure with clear documentation of analytic tags, (4) in-house software development expertise, and (5) a collective tolerance for methodological change.

conclusionsScientific methods and practices that can facilitate the agile trials needed to iterate and improve digital health interventions warrant continued implementation. The service of research analytics may help to accelerate the pace of digital health evidence generation and build a data-rich research infrastructure that enables continuous learning and evaluation.

Indexed as

HumansResearch DesignTelemedicinechronic diseasedigital healtheffective engagementimplementationlog datamobile healthresearch analyticsservice design

Identifiers

PMID31710296
PMCPMC6878108

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.