ArticleDigital health
Improving safety claims in digital health interventions using the digital health assessment method.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Establish a relationship between digital health intervention (DHI) and health system challenges (HSCs), as defined by the World Health Organization; within the context of hazard identification (HazID), leading to safety claims. To improve the justification of safety of DHIs and provide a standardised approach to hazard assessment through common terminology, ontology and simplification of safety claims. Articulation of results, to provide guidance for health strategy and regulatory/standards-based compliance. Methods: We categorise and analyse hazards using a qualitative HazID study. This method utilises a synergy between simplicity of DHI intended use and the interaction from a multidisciplinary team (technologists and health informaticians) in the hazard analysis of the subject under assessment as an influencing factor. Although there are other methodologies available for hazard assessment. We examine the hazards identified and associated failures to articulate the improvements in the quality of safety claims. Results: Applying the method provides the hazard assessment and helps generate the assurance case. Justification of safety is made and elicits confidence in safety claim. Controls to hazards contribute to meeting the HSC. Conclusions: This method of hazard assessment, analysis and the use of ontologies (DHI & HSC) improves the justification of safety claim and evidence articulation.
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.