Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36843321›Full record

ReviewJMIR human factors2023

Assessing the Quality and Impact of eHealth Tools: Systematic Literature Review and Narrative Synthesis.

Christine Jacob, Johan Lindeque, Alexander Klein, Chris Ivory, Sabina Heuss, Marc K Peter

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR human factors, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
21.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Christine JacobFHNW - University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland, Windisch, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8817-0148
Johan LindequeFHNW - University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland, Olten, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8303-2715
Alexander KleinMedical Affairs (Personalised Healthcare and Patient Access), F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8177-8006
Chris Ivory *Innovation Management, Mälardalens University, Västerås, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1567-3294
Sabina Heuss *FHNW - University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland, Olten, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1171-918X
Marc K Peter *FHNW - University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland, Olten, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2897-0389
FHNW University of Applied Sciences and Arts · CHMälardalen University · SERoche (Switzerland) · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTechnological advancements have opened the path for many technology providers to easily develop and introduce eHealth tools to the public. The use of these tools is increasingly recognized as a critical quality driver in health care; however, choosing a quality tool from the myriad of tools available for a specific health need does not come without challenges.

objectiveThis review aimed to systematically investigate the literature to understand the different approaches and criteria used to assess the quality and impact of eHealth tools by considering sociotechnical factors (from technical, social, and organizational perspectives).

methodsA structured search was completed following the participants, intervention, comparators, and outcomes framework. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and ProQuest databases for studies published between January 2012 and January 2022 in English, which yielded 675 results, of which 40 (5.9%) studies met the inclusion criteria. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were followed to ensure a systematic process. Extracted data were analyzed using NVivo (QSR International), with a thematic analysis and narrative synthesis of emergent themes.

resultsSimilar measures from the different papers, frameworks, and initiatives were aggregated into 36 unique criteria grouped into 13 clusters. Using the sociotechnical approach, we classified the relevant criteria into technical, social, and organizational assessment criteria. Technical assessment criteria were grouped into 5 clusters: technical aspects, functionality, content, data management, and design. Social assessment criteria were grouped into 4 clusters: human centricity, health outcomes, visible popularity metrics, and social aspects. Organizational assessment criteria were grouped into 4 clusters: sustainability and scalability, health care organization, health care context, and developer.

conclusionsThis review builds on the growing body of research that investigates the criteria used to assess the quality and impact of eHealth tools and highlights the complexity and challenges facing these initiatives. It demonstrates that there is no single framework that is used uniformly to assess the quality and impact of eHealth tools. It also highlights the need for a more comprehensive approach that balances the social, organizational, and technical assessment criteria in a way that reflects the complexity and interdependence of the health care ecosystem and is aligned with the factors affecting users' adoption to ensure uptake and adherence in the long term.

Indexed as

digital healtheHealthmHealthmobile healthtechnology adoptiontechnology assessmenttechnology implementation

Identifiers

PMID36843321
PMCPMC10131913
OpenAlexW4322389240

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.