Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36083628›Full record

ReviewJMIR human factors2022

The Challenges Toward Real-world Implementation of Digital Health Design Approaches: Narrative Review.

Anthony Duffy, Gregory J Christie, Sylvain Moreno

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR human factors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Evidence Base on Outpatient Behavioral Treatments for Adolescent Substance Use, Update 2018-2023: Current Status, Best Practices, and Opportunities for Advancing the Science.Journal of clinical child and adolescent psychology : the official journal for the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, American Psychological Association, Division 53
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 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

3 authors.

Anthony DuffySchool of Interactive Arts & Technology, Simon Fraser University, Surrey, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4769-8819
Gregory J ChristieDigital Health Circle, Surrey, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7084-532X
Sylvain MorenoSchool of Interactive Arts & Technology, Simon Fraser University, Surrey, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6898-7479

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital health represents an important strategy in the future of health care delivery. Over the past decade, mobile health has accelerated the agency of health care users. Despite prevailing excitement about the potential of digital health, questions remain on efficacy, uptake, usability, and patient outcome. This challenge is confounded by 2 industries, digital and health, which have vastly different approaches to research, design, testing, and implementation. In this regard, there is a need to examine prevailing design approaches, weigh their benefits and challenges toward implementation, and recommend a path forward that synthesizes the needs of this complex stakeholder group.

objectiveIn this review, we aimed to study prominent digital health intervention design approaches that mediate the digital health space. In doing so, we sought to examine the origins, perceived benefits, contrasting nuances, challenges, and typical use-case scenarios of each methodology.

methodsA narrative review of digital health design approaches was performed between September 2020 and April 2021 by referencing keywords such as "digital health design," "mHealth design," "e-Health design," "agile health," and "agile healthcare." The studies selected after screening were those that discussed the design and implementation of digital health design approaches. A total of 120 studies were selected for full-text review, of which 62 (51.6%) were selected for inclusion in this review.

resultsA review identifying the 5 overarching digital health design approaches was compiled: user-centered design, person-based design, human-centered design, patient-centered design, and patient-led design. The findings were synthesized in a narrative structure discussing the origins, advantages, disadvantages, challenges, and potential use-case scenarios.

conclusionsDigital health is experiencing the growing pains of rapid expansion. Currently, numerous design approaches are being implemented to harmonize the needs of a complex stakeholder group. Whether the end user is positioned as a person, patient, or user, the challenge to synthesize the constraints and affordances of both digital design and health care, built equally around user satisfaction and clinical efficacy, remains paramount. Further research that works toward a transdisciplinarity in digital health may help break down friction in this field. Until digital health is viewed as a hybridized industry with unique requirements rather than one with competing interests, the nuances that each design approach posits will be difficult to realize in a real-world context. We encourage the collaboration of digital and health experts within hybrid design teams, through all stages of intervention design, to create a better digital health culture and design ethos.

Indexed as

co-designdigital healthend usershealth behaviorinterventionmobile healthmobile phoneuser experience

Identifiers

PMID36083628
PMCPMC9508664

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.