Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34494965›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

An Evaluation Service for Digital Public Health Interventions: User-Centered Design Approach.

Kassandra Karpathakis, Gene Libow, Henry W W Potts, Simon Dixon, Felix Greaves, Elizabeth Murray

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kassandra KarpathakisNHS Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, NHSX, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3079-6268
Gene LibowIndependent Service Design Consultant, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8478-4660
Henry W W PottsInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6200-8804
Simon DixonNHSX, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2636-6986
Felix Greaves *Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9393-3122
Elizabeth Murray *Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8932-3695
University College London · GBNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital health interventions (DHIs) have the potential to improve public health by combining effective interventions and population reach. However, what biomedical researchers and digital developers consider an effective intervention differs, thereby creating an ongoing challenge to integrating their respective approaches when evaluating DHIs.

objectiveThis study aims to report on the Public Health England (PHE) initiative set out to operationalize an evaluation framework that combines biomedical and digital approaches and demonstrates the impact, cost-effectiveness, and benefit of DHIs on public health.

methodsWe comprised a multidisciplinary project team including service designers, academics, and public health professionals and used user-centered design methods, such as qualitative research, engagement with end users and stakeholders, and iterative learning. The iterative approach enabled the team to sequentially define the problem, understand user needs, identify opportunity areas, develop concepts, test prototypes, and plan service implementation. Stakeholders, senior leaders from PHE, and a working group critiqued the outputs.

resultsWe identified 26 themes and 82 user needs from semistructured interviews (N=15), expressed as 46 Jobs To Be Done, which were then validated across the journey of evaluation design for a DHI. We identified seven essential concepts for evaluating DHIs: evaluation thinking, evaluation canvas, contract assistant, testing toolkit, development history, data hub, and publish health outcomes. Of these, three concepts were prioritized for further testing and development, and subsequently refined into the proposed PHE Evaluation Service for public health DHIs. Testing with PHE's Couch-to-5K app digital team confirmed the viability, desirability, and feasibility of both the evaluation approach and the Evaluation Service.

conclusionsAn iterative, user-centered design approach enabled PHE to combine the strengths of academic and biomedical disciplines with the expertise of nonacademic and digital developers for evaluating DHIs. Design-led methodologies can add value to public health settings. The subsequent service, now known as Evaluating Digital Health Products, is currently in use by health bodies in the United Kingdom and is available to others for tackling the problem of evaluating DHIs pragmatically and responsively.

Indexed as

Public HealthTelemedicineCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansQualitative ResearchUser-Centered Designdigital healthevaluation studieshuman-centered designinternet-based interventionsmHealthmobile phonepublic healthservice design

Identifiers

PMID34494965
PMCPMC8459216
OpenAlexW3177416374

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.