Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38918483›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2024

A scoping review assessing the usability of digital health technologies targeting people with multiple sclerosis.

Fiona Tea, Adam M R Groh, Colleen Lacey, Afolasade Fakolade

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors.

Fiona Tea *Department of Neuroscience, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Adam M R Groh *Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Montreal Neurological Institute-Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Colleen LaceyDepartment of Psychology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.
Afolasade FakoladeSchool of Rehabilitation Therapy, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada. a.fakolade@queensu.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3405-5782

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital health technologies (DHTs) have become progressively more integrated into the healthcare of people with multiple sclerosis (MS). To ensure that DHTs meet end-users' needs, it is essential to assess their usability. The objective of this study was to determine how DHTs targeting people with MS incorporate usability characteristics into their design and/or evaluation. We conducted a scoping review of DHT studies in MS published from 2010 to the present using PubMed, Web of Science, OVID Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and medRxiv. Covidence was used to facilitate the review. We included articles that focused on people with MS and/or their caregivers, studied DHTs (including mhealth, telehealth, and wearables), and employed quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods designs. Thirty-two studies that assessed usability were included, which represents a minority of studies (26%) that assessed DHTs in MS. The most common DHT was mobile applications (n = 23, 70%). Overall, studies were highly heterogeneous with respect to what usability principles were considered and how usability was assessed. These findings suggest that there is a major gap in the application of standardized usability assessments to DHTs in MS. Improvements in the standardization of usability assessments will have implications for the future of digital health care for people with MS.

Identifiers

PMID38918483
PMCPMC11199563

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.