Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33174846›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

Evaluating Patient-Centered Mobile Health Technologies: Definitions, Methodologies, and Outcomes.

Courtenay Bruce, Patricia Harrison, Charlie Giammattei, Shetal-Nicholas Desai, Joshua R Sol, Stephen Jones, Roberta Schwartz

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 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

7 authors.

Courtenay Bruce *System Quality & Patient Safety, Houston Methodist System, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9503-9834
Patricia HarrisonSystem Quality & Patient Safety, Houston Methodist System, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8832-2885
Charlie GiammatteiCareSense, MedTrak, Inc, Conshohocken, PA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2776-7821
Shetal-Nicholas DesaiCenter for Innovation, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7695-4044
Joshua R SolCenter for Innovation, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2742-8819
Stephen JonesCenter for Outcomes Research, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1106-171X
Roberta SchwartzCenter for Innovation, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3757-8765

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several recently published studies and consensus statements have demonstrated that there is only modest (and in many cases, low-quality) evidence that mobile health (mHealth) can improve patient clinical outcomes such as the length of stay or reduction of readmissions. There is also uncertainty as to whether mHealth can improve patient-centered outcomes such as patient engagement or patient satisfaction. One principal challenge behind the "effectiveness" research in this field is a lack of common understanding about what it means to be effective in the digital space (ie, what should constitute a relevant outcome and how best to measure it). In this viewpoint, we call for interdisciplinary, conceptual clarity on the definitions, methodologies, and patient-centered outcomes frequently used in mHealth research. To formulate our recommendations, we used a snowballing approach to identify relevant definitions, outcomes, and methodologies related to mHealth. To begin, we drew heavily upon previously published detailed frameworks that enumerate definitions and measurements of engagement. We built upon these frameworks by extracting other relevant measures of patient-centered care, such as patient satisfaction, patient experience, and patient activation. We describe several definitional inconsistencies for key constructs in the mHealth literature. In an effort to achieve clarity, we tease apart several patient-centered care outcomes, and outline methodologies appropriate to measure each of these patient-care outcomes. By creating a common pathway linking definitions with outcomes and methodologies, we provide a possible interdisciplinary approach to evaluating mHealth technologies. With the broader goal of creating an interdisciplinary approach, we also provide several recommendations that we believe can advance mHealth research and implementation.

Indexed as

TelemedicineBiomedical TechnologyHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient-Centered CareTechnologydigital interventionsdigital technologyeffectivenesshealth careinformation technologiesinnovationlength of stayoutcomespatient activationpatient adherencepatient-centered carepatient centerednesspatient engagementpatient experiencepatient-facing technologiesqualityquality improvementreadmissions

Identifiers

PMID33174846
PMCPMC7688390

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.