Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35968430›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2022

Beyond effectiveness evaluation: Contributing to the discussion on complexity of digital health interventions with examples from cancer care.

Filipa Ventura, Maria Brovall, Frida Smith

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Filipa VenturaHealth Sciences Research Unit: Nursing, Nursing School of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Maria BrovallDepartment of Nursing, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping Academy, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden.
Frida SmithRegional Cancer Centre West, Western Sweden Healthcare Region, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital health interventions (DHIs) have become essential complementary solutions in health care to enhance support and communication at a distance, with evidence of improving patient outcomes. Improving clinical outcomes is a major determinant of success in any health intervention, influencing its funding, development, adoption and implementation in real-world practice. In this article we explore our experiences of developing and testing DHIs to identify and discuss complexity challenges along their intervention research lifecycle. Informed by the case study research approach, we selected three individual DHIs aimed at satisfying the supportive and educational needs of people living with cancer. The Care Expert, the Digi-Do and the Gatapp were underpinned on different complexity frameworks i.e., the Medical Research Council framework and the Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability framework. This variance on the methodological underpinning was expected to prompt a multifaceted discussion on the complexity dimensions endorsed by each of the frameworks. Our discussion endorses the adoption of mixed-methods research designs, to gather the perspectives of stakeholders and end-users, as well as pragmatic evaluation approaches that value effectiveness outcomes as much as process outcomes. Furthermore, the dissemination and sustainability agenda of DHIs needs to be considered from early-stage development with the inclusion of a business model. This business plan should be worked in partnership with healthcare services, regulatory bodies and industry, aiming to assure the management of the DHI throughout time.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareNeoplasmsCommunicationHealth ServicesHumanscancer carecomplex interventionshybrid designsinteractive health communication technologiestelehealth

Identifiers

PMID35968430
PMCPMC9374100

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.