Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32784173›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

Online Guide for Electronic Health Evaluation Approaches: Systematic Scoping Review and Concept Mapping Study.

Tobias N Bonten, Anneloek Rauwerdink, Jeremy C Wyatt, Marise J Kasteleyn, Leonard Witkamp, Heleen Riper, Lisette Jewc van Gemert-Pijnen, Kathrin Cresswell, Aziz Sheikh, Marlies P Schijven and 2 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article 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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Tobias N Bonten *Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7719-6182
Anneloek Rauwerdink *Department of Surgery, Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7126-3156
Jeremy C WyattWessex Institute, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7008-1473
Marise J KasteleynDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7751-7516
Leonard WitkampDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5579-6398
Heleen RiperDepartment of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8144-8901
Lisette Jewc van Gemert-PijnenDepartment of Psychology, Health and Technology, Centre for eHealth and Wellbeing Research, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6511-7240
Kathrin CresswellCentre of Medical Informatics, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Medical School, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6634-9537
Aziz SheikhCentre of Medical Informatics, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Medical School, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7022-3056
Marlies P SchijvenDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7013-0116
Niels H ChavannesDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8607-9199
EHealth Evaluation Research GroupPlease see acknowledgements section for list of collaborators , .

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the increase in use and high expectations of digital health solutions, scientific evidence about the effectiveness of electronic health (eHealth) and other aspects such as usability and accuracy is lagging behind. eHealth solutions are complex interventions, which require a wide array of evaluation approaches that are capable of answering the many different questions that arise during the consecutive study phases of eHealth development and implementation. However, evaluators seem to struggle in choosing suitable evaluation approaches in relation to a specific study phase.

objectiveThe objective of this project was to provide a structured overview of the existing eHealth evaluation approaches, with the aim of assisting eHealth evaluators in selecting a suitable approach for evaluating their eHealth solution at a specific evaluation study phase.

methodsThree consecutive steps were followed. Step 1 was a systematic scoping review, summarizing existing eHealth evaluation approaches. Step 2 was a concept mapping study asking eHealth researchers about approaches for evaluating eHealth. In step 3, the results of step 1 and 2 were used to develop an "eHealth evaluation cycle" and subsequently compose the online "eHealth methodology guide."

resultsThe scoping review yielded 57 articles describing 50 unique evaluation approaches. The concept mapping study questioned 43 eHealth researchers, resulting in 48 unique approaches. After removing duplicates, 75 unique evaluation approaches remained. Thereafter, an "eHealth evaluation cycle" was developed, consisting of six evaluation study phases: conceptual and planning, design, development and usability, pilot (feasibility), effectiveness (impact), uptake (implementation), and all phases. Finally, the "eHealth methodology guide" was composed by assigning the 75 evaluation approaches to the specific study phases of the "eHealth evaluation cycle."

conclusionsSeventy-five unique evaluation approaches were found in the literature and suggested by eHealth researchers, which served as content for the online "eHealth methodology guide." By assisting evaluators in selecting a suitable evaluation approach in relation to a specific study phase of the "eHealth evaluation cycle," the guide aims to enhance the quality, safety, and successful long-term implementation of novel eHealth solutions.

Indexed as

concept mappingdigital healtheHealthevaluationhealth technology assessmentmethodologymHealthscoping reviewstudy design

Identifiers

PMID32784173
PMCPMC7450369

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.