ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021
Lessons Learned: Beta-Testing the Digital Health Checklist for Researchers Prompts a Call to Action by Behavioral Scientists.
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 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Designing user-centered evaluations: Leveraging beta-testing results to develop process evaluation interview questions for the AMPLIFY program.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Digital Measurement of Subjective Experiences in Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias (AD/ADRD).JMIR aging · 2025Article
- Design approaches for developing quality checklists in healthcare organizations: A scoping review.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Addressing the Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues of Healthtech in Education: Insights From Japan.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Longitudinal and Combined Smartwatch and Ecological Momentary Assessment in Racially Diverse Older Adults: Feasibility, Adherence, and Acceptability Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Mobility-Based Smartphone Digital Phenotypes for Unobtrusively Capturing Everyday Cognition, Mood, and Community Life-Space in Older Adults: Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Validity Study.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- The Digital Therapeutics Real-World Evidence Framework: An Approach for Guiding Evidence-Based Digital Therapeutics Design, Development, Testing, and Monitoring.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Ethical, legal, and social implications of digital health: A needs assessment from the Society of Behavioral Medicine to inform capacity building for behavioral scientists.Translational behavioral medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Added Value of Digital Contact Tracing Support Tools for Citizens: Framework Development.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Qualitative Evaluation of Family Caregivers' Experiences Participating in Knowledge and Interpersonal Skills to Develop Exemplary Relationships (KINDER): Web-Based Intervention to Improve Relationship Quality.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Capturing Cognitive Aging in Vivo: Application of a Neuropsychological Framework for Emerging Digital Tools.JMIR aging · 2022Article
- Advancing Infodemiology in a Digital Intensive Era.JMIR infodemiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Digital technologies offer unique opportunities for health research. For example, Twitter posts can support public health surveillance to identify outbreaks (eg, influenza and COVID-19), and a wearable fitness tracker can provide real-time data collection to assess the effectiveness of a behavior change intervention. With these opportunities, it is necessary to consider the potential risks and benefits to research participants when using digital tools or strategies. Researchers need to be involved in the risk assessment process, as many tools in the marketplace (eg, wellness apps, fitness sensors) are underregulated. However, there is little guidance to assist researchers and institutional review boards in their evaluation of digital tools for research purposes. To address this gap, the Digital Health Checklist for Researchers (DHC-R) was developed as a decision support tool. A participatory research approach involving a group of behavioral scientists was used to inform DHC-R development. Scientists beta-tested the checklist by retrospectively evaluating the technologies they had chosen for use in their research. This paper describes the lessons learned because of their involvement in the beta-testing process and concludes with recommendations for how the DHC-R could be useful for a variety of digital health stakeholders. Recommendations focus on future research and policy development to support research ethics, including the development of best practices to advance safe and responsible digital health research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.