Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32436852›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2020

Supporting Self-Management of Cardiovascular Diseases Through Remote Monitoring Technologies: Metaethnography Review of Frameworks, Models, and Theories Used in Research and Development.

Roberto Rafael Cruz-Martínez, Jobke Wentzel, Rikke Aune Asbjørnsen, Peter Daniel Noort, Johan Magnus van Niekerk, Robbert Sanderman, Julia Ewc van Gemert-Pijnen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

7 authors.

Roberto Rafael Cruz-MartínezDepartment of Psychology, Health and Technology, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9308-364X
Jobke WentzelDepartment of Psychology, Health and Technology, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3897-4436
Rikke Aune AsbjørnsenDepartment of Psychology, Health and Technology, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4295-9298
Peter Daniel NoortEmbedded Information Services, Library, ICT Services & Archive, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6067-9121
Johan Magnus van NiekerkDepartment of Psychology, Health and Technology, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4737-5809
Robbert SandermanDepartment of Psychology, Health and Technology, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0823-1159
Julia Ewc van Gemert-PijnenDepartment of Psychology, Health and Technology, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6511-7240

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic health (eHealth) is a rapidly evolving field informed by multiple scientific disciplines. Because of this, the use of different terms and concepts to explain the same phenomena and lack of standardization in reporting interventions often leaves a gap that hinders knowledge accumulation. Interventions focused on self-management support of cardiovascular diseases through the use of remote monitoring technologies are a cross-disciplinary area potentially affected by this gap. A review of the underlying frameworks, models, and theories that have informed projects at this crossroad could advance future research and development efforts.

objectiveThis research aimed to identify and compare underlying approaches that have informed interventions focused on self-management support of cardiovascular diseases through the use of remote monitoring technologies. The objective was to achieve an understanding of the distinct approaches by highlighting common or conflicting principles, guidelines, and methods.

methodsThe metaethnography approach was used to review and synthesize researchers' reports on how they applied frameworks, models, and theories in their projects. Literature was systematically searched in 7 databases: Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library, and Cochrane Library. Included studies were thoroughly read and coded to extract data for the synthesis. Studies were mainly related by the key ingredients of the underlying approaches they applied. The key ingredients were finally translated across studies and synthesized into thematic clusters.

resultsOf 1224 initial results, 17 articles were included. The articles described research and development of 10 different projects. Frameworks, models, and theories (n=43) applied by the projects were identified. Key ingredients (n=293) of the included articles were mapped to the following themes of eHealth development: (1) it is a participatory process; (2) it creates new infrastructures for improving health care, health, and well-being; (3) it is intertwined with implementation; (4) it integrates theory, evidence, and participatory approaches for persuasive design; (5) it requires continuous evaluation cycles; (6) it targets behavior change; (7) it targets technology adoption; and (8) it targets health-related outcomes.

conclusionsThe findings of this review support and exemplify the numerous possibilities in the use of frameworks, models, and theories to guide research and development of eHealth. Participatory, user-centered design, and integration with empirical evidence and theoretical modeling were widely identified principles in the literature. On the contrary, less attention has been given to the integration of implementation in the development process and supporting novel eHealth-based health care infrastructures. To better integrate theory and evidence, holistic approaches can combine patient-centered studies with consolidated knowledge from expert-based approaches.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42018104397; https://tinyurl.com/y8ajyajt. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/13334.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesHumansRemote ConsultationSelf-ManagementTelemedicinecardiovascular diseasesdevelopmenteHealthevaluationframeworkimplementationmeta-ethnographymodelmultidisciplinaryqualitative evidence synthesisremote monitoringself-managementsystematic reviewtelemedicinetheory

Identifiers

PMID32436852
PMCPMC7273239

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.