Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32379055›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

Human-Centered Design Strategies for Device Selection in mHealth Programs: Development of a Novel Framework and Case Study.

Ashley Marie Polhemus, Jan Novák, Jose Ferrao, Sara Simblett, Marta Radaelli, Patrick Locatelli, Faith Matcham, Maximilian Kerz, Janice Weyer, Patrick Burke and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Digitalized transcranial electrical stimulation: A consensus statement.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

21 authors.

Ashley Marie PolhemusMerck Research Labs Information Technology, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-5056-5785
Jan NovákMerck Research Labs Information Technology, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-5545-2723
Jose FerraoMerck Research Labs Information Technology, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-1001-1451
Sara SimblettInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8075-8238
Marta RadaelliNeurology Services, San Raffaele Hospital Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1948-3498
Patrick LocatelliDepartment of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3796-8512
Faith MatchamInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4055-904X
Maximilian KerzInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1435-6318
Janice WeyerPatient Advisory Board, Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse Research Program, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7838-6260
Patrick BurkePatient Advisory Board, Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse Research Program, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2547-6374
Vincy HuangMerck Research Labs Information Technology, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-2569-0701
Marissa Fallon DockendorfPharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Drug Metabolism, Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, NJ, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6341-0221
Gergely TemesiMerck Research Labs Information Technology, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-3423-2200
Til WykesInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5881-8003
Giancarlo ComiNeurology Services, San Raffaele Hospital Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6989-1054
Inez Myin-GermeysDepartment for Neurosciences, Center for Contextual Psychiatry, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-3731-4930
Amos FolarinInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0333-1927
Richard DobsonInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4224-9245
Nikolay V ManyakovJanssen Pharmaceutica NV, Beerse, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-9037-1400
Vaibhav A NarayanResearch and Development Information Technology, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Titusville, NJ, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6092-5150
Matthew HotopfInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3980-4466

Funding

Medical Research Council G0901434Medical Research Council MC_PC_17214
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the increasing use of remote measurement technologies (RMT) such as wearables or biosensors in health care programs, challenges associated with selecting and implementing these technologies persist. Many health care programs that use RMT rely on commercially available, "off-the-shelf" devices to collect patient data. However, validation of these devices is sparse, the technology landscape is constantly changing, relative benefits between device options are often unclear, and research on patient and health care provider preferences is often lacking.

objectiveTo address these common challenges, we propose a novel device selection framework extrapolated from human-centered design principles, which are commonly used in de novo digital health product design. We then present a case study in which we used the framework to identify, test, select, and implement off-the-shelf devices for the Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse-Central Nervous System (RADAR-CNS) consortium, a research program using RMT to study central nervous system disease progression.

methodsThe RADAR-CNS device selection framework describes a human-centered approach to device selection for mobile health programs. The framework guides study designers through stakeholder engagement, technology landscaping, rapid proof of concept testing, and creative problem solving to develop device selection criteria and a robust implementation strategy. It also describes a method for considering compromises when tensions between stakeholder needs occur.

resultsThe framework successfully guided device selection for the RADAR-CNS study on relapse in multiple sclerosis. In the initial stage, we engaged a multidisciplinary team of patients, health care professionals, researchers, and technologists to identify our primary device-related goals. We desired regular home-based measurements of gait, balance, fatigue, heart rate, and sleep over the course of the study. However, devices and measurement methods had to be user friendly, secure, and able to produce high quality data. In the second stage, we iteratively refined our strategy and selected devices based on technological and regulatory constraints, user feedback, and research goals. At several points, we used this method to devise compromises that addressed conflicting stakeholder needs. We then implemented a feedback mechanism into the study to gather lessons about devices to improve future versions of the RADAR-CNS program.

conclusionsThe RADAR device selection framework provides a structured yet flexible approach to device selection for health care programs and can be used to systematically approach complex decisions that require teams to consider patient experiences alongside scientific priorities and logistical, technical, or regulatory constraints.

Indexed as

TelemedicineHealth PersonnelHumansTechnologydesign thinkingdevice selectionhuman-centric designpatient centricityremote measurement technologiesremote patient monitoringtechnology selection

Identifiers

PMID32379055
PMCPMC7243134

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.