Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35526274›Full record

SynthesisHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2022

Meaningful patient and public involvement in digital health innovation, implementation and evaluation: A systematic review.

Rebecca Baines, Hannah Bradwell, Katie Edwards, Sebastian Stevens, Samantha Prime, John Tredinnick-Rowe, Miles Sibley, Arunangsu Chatterjee

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Meaningful patient and public involvement in digital health innovation, implementation and evaluation: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Pooled it
  8. Using a Person-Centred Approach to Adapt a Digital Therapy for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (COMPASS-IBD).Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Beyond the dataset: integrating public voices in data science.Research involvement and engagement · 2026
    Article
  20. Review

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Rebecca BainesCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9857-1976
Hannah BradwellCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9103-1069
Katie EdwardsCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6212-6010
Sebastian StevensCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4997-2591
Samantha PrimeCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6988-2238
John Tredinnick-RoweCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1154-7410
Miles SibleyPatient Experience Library, Macfin, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9320-3477
Arunangsu ChatterjeeCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9506-6007

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe importance of meaningfully involving patients and the public in digital health innovation is widely acknowledged, but often poorly understood. This review, therefore, sought to explore how patients and the public are involved in digital health innovation and to identify factors that support and inhibit meaningful patient and public involvement (PPI) in digital health innovation, implementation and evaluation.

methodsSearches were undertaken from 2010 to July 2020 in the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and ACM Digital Library. Grey literature searches were also undertaken using the Patient Experience Library database and Google Scholar.

resultsOf the 10,540 articles identified, 433 were included. The majority of included articles were published in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, with representation from 42 countries highlighting the international relevance of PPI in digital health. 112 topic areas where PPI had reportedly taken place were identified. Areas most often described included cancer (n = 50), mental health (n = 43), diabetes (n = 26) and long-term conditions (n = 19). Interestingly, over 133 terms were used to describe PPI; few were explicitly defined. Patients were often most involved in the final, passive stages of an innovation journey, for example, usability testing, where the ability to proactively influence change was severely limited. Common barriers to achieving meaningful PPI included data privacy and security concerns, not involving patients early enough and lack of trust. Suggested enablers were often designed to counteract such challenges.

conclusionsPPI is largely viewed as valuable and essential in digital health innovation, but rarely practised. Several barriers exist for both innovators and patients, which currently limits the quality, frequency and duration of PPI in digital health innovation, although improvements have been made in the past decade. Some reported barriers and enablers such as the importance of data privacy and security appear to be unique to PPI in digital innovation. Greater efforts should be made to support innovators and patients to become meaningfully involved in digital health innovations from the outset, given its reported benefits and impacts. Stakeholder consensus on the principles that underpin meaningful PPI in digital health innovation would be helpful in providing evidence-based guidance on how to achieve this. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This review has received extensive patient and public contributions with a representative from the Patient Experience Library involved throughout the review's conception, from design (including suggested revisions to the search strategy) through to article production and dissemination. Other areas of patient and public contributor involvement include contributing to the inductive thematic analysis process, refining the thematic framework and finalizing theme wording, helping to ensure relevance, value and meaning from a patient perspective. Findings from this review have also been presented to a variety of stakeholders including patients, patient advocates and clinicians through a series of focus groups and webinars. Given their extensive involvement, the representative from the Patient Experience Library is rightly included as an author of this review.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationMental HealthProgram DevelopmentTelemedicineAustraliaCanadaHealth Plan ImplementationHumansMeaningful UsePatient ParticipationUnited KingdomUnited Statescodesigndigital healthdigital innovationehealthpatient and public involvementsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35526274
PMCPMC9327849

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.