ReviewJMIR human factors2023
Assessing the Quality and Impact of eHealth Tools: Systematic Literature Review and Narrative Synthesis.
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.
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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endometriosis Support and Development of Digital Technology-Based Interventions: Systematic Review.JMIR human factors · 2025Pooled it
- AI for IMPACTS Framework for Evaluating the Long-Term Real-World Impacts of AI-Powered Clinician Tools: Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Electronic Medication Reconciliation Tools Aimed at Healthcare Professionals to Support Medication Reconciliation: a Systematic Review.Journal of medical systems · 2023Pooled it
- Inclusive Digital Health Strategies for Persons With Disabilities: A Scoping Review.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Reluctance to Use a Psycho-Oncology Mobile App Among Patients With Primary Breast Cancer: Retrospective Cross-Sectional Survey.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Natural product-based interventions for thyroid disorders: mechanisms and applications.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Bridging Gaps in Women's Heart Health: User-Centered Needs Assessment Informed by Patient and Clinician Interviews.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Development of an evidence-based evaluation framework for digital health software products.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development of a Web-Based Intervention to Support Primary Health Care Professionals in Digital Health Measurement: User-Centered Participatory Approach.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Perceptions and Needs of Stakeholders Regarding MyPal Project's Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome App: Cross-Sectional Qualitative Focus Group Study.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Mobile Apps and Wearable Devices for Cardiovascular Health: Narrative Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Review
- Think-Aloud Testing of a Companion App for Colonoscopy Examinations: Usability Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Swedish Version of the System Usability Scale: Translation, Adaption, and Psychometric Evaluation.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- IRT analysis of the BDI-II for early online depression detection: validation in a Mexican population.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Review
- Telehealth development in the WHO European region: Results from a quantitative survey and insights from Norway.International journal of medical informatics · 2024Article
- Clinical Validation of Digital Healthcare Solutions: State of the Art, Challenges and Opportunities.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Exploring the Role of Complexity in Health Care Technology Bottom-Up Innovations: Multiple-Case Study Using the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability Complexity Assessment Tool.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Under the Tech Umbrella: Assessing the Landscape of Telemedicine Innovations (Telemechron Study).Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Health Care Professionals' Experiences With a Mobile Self-Care Solution for Low Complex Orthopedic Injuries: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.