Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37053272›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Digital health for chronic disease management: An exploratory method to investigating technology adoption potential.

Vasileios Nittas, Chiara Zecca, Christian P Kamm, Jens Kuhle, Andrew Chan, Viktor von Wyl

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.7field-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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Bangkok declarations on cancer control in Asia.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Vasileios NittasBiostatistics & Prevention Institute, Epidemiology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6685-8275
Chiara ZeccaDepartment of Neurology, Neurocenter of Southern Switzerland, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-9990-3431
Christian P KammDepartment of Neurology, Inselspital, University Hospital Bern and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-3906-0161
Jens KuhleNeurologic Clinic and Policlinic, MS Center and Research Center for Clinical Neuroimmunology and Neuroscience Basel (RC2NB), University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Andrew ChanDepartment of Neurology, Inselspital, University Hospital Bern and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Viktor von WylBiostatistics & Prevention Institute, Epidemiology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
University of Bern · CHUniversity of Zurich · CHLaboratory for Biomedical Neurosciences · CHUniversity of Basel · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe availability of consumer-facing health technologies for chronic disease management is skyrocketing, yet most are limited by low adoption rates. Improving adoption requires a better understanding of a target population's previous exposure to technology. We propose a low-resource approach of capturing and clustering technology exposure, as a mean to better understand patients and target health technologies.

methodsUsing Multiple Sclerosis (MS) as a case study, we applied exploratory multivariate factorial analyses to survey data from the Swiss MS Registry. We calculated individual-level factor scorings, aiming to investigate possible technology adoption clusters with similar digital behavior patterns. The resulting clusters were transformed using radar and then compared across sociodemographic and health status characteristics.

resultsOur analysis included data from 990 respondents, resulting in three clusters, which we defined as the (1) average users, (2) health-interested users, and (3) low frequency users. The average user uses consumer-facing technology regularly, mainly for daily, regular activities and less so for health-related purposes. The health-interested user also uses technology regularly, for daily activities as well as health-related purposes. The low-frequency user uses technology infrequently.

conclusionsOnly about 10% of our sample has been regularly using (adopting) consumer-facing technology for MS and health-related purposes. That might indicate that many of the current consumer-facing technologies for MS are only attractive to a small proportion of patients. The relatively low-resource exploratory analyses proposed here may allow for a better characterization of prospective user populations and ultimately, future patient-facing technologies that will be targeted to a broader audience.

Indexed as

Biomedical TechnologyTechnologyChronic DiseaseHumansProspective StudiesSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID37053272
PMCPMC10101441
OpenAlexW4365458746

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.