Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39196643›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Approaches to Evaluating Digital Health Technologies: Scoping Review.

Anneloek Rauwerdink, Pier Spinazze, Harm Gijsbers, Juul Molendijk, Sandra Zwolsman, Marlies P Schijven, Niels H Chavannes, Marise J Kasteleyn

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors.

Anneloek Rauwerdink *Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7126-3156
Pier Spinazze *Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1416-0174
Harm GijsbersDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8065-7683
Juul MolendijkAmsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0009-2711-9961
Sandra ZwolsmanDigital Health, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4641-9902
Marlies P SchijvenDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7013-0116
Niels H ChavannesDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8607-9199
Marise J KasteleynDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7751-7516

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProfound scientific evaluation of novel digital health technologies (DHTs) is key to enhance successful development and implementation. As such, we previously developed the eHealth evaluation cycle. The eHealth evaluation cycle contains 5 consecutive study phases: conceptual, development, feasibility, effectiveness, and implementation.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to develop a better understanding of the daily practice of the eHealth evaluation cycle. Therefore, the objectives are to conduct a structured analysis of literature data to analyze the practice of the evaluation study phases and to determine which evaluation approaches are used in which study phase of the eHealth evaluation cycle.

methodsWe conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed including the MeSH term "telemedicine" in combination with a wide variety of evaluation approaches. Original peer-reviewed studies published in the year 2019 (pre-COVID-19 cohort) were included. Nonpatient-focused studies were excluded. Data on the following variables were extracted and systematically analyzed: journal, country, publication date, medical specialty, primary user, functionality, evaluation study phases, and evaluation approach. RStudio software was used to summarize the descriptive data and to perform statistical analyses.

resultsWe included 824 studies after 1583 titles and abstracts were screened. The majority of the evaluation studies focused on the effectiveness (impact; 304/824, 36.9%) study phase, whereas uptake (implementation; 70/824, 8.5%) received the least focus. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 170/899, 18.9%) were the most commonly used DHT evaluation method. Within the effectiveness (impact) study phase, RCTs were used in one-half of the studies. In the conceptual and planning phases, survey research (27/78, 35%) and interview studies (27/78, 35%) were most frequently used. The United States published the largest amount of DHT evaluation studies (304/824, 36.9%). Psychiatry and mental health (89/840, 10.6%) and cardiology (75/840, 8.9%) had the majority of studies published within the field.

conclusionsWe composed the first comprehensive overview of the actual practice of implementing consecutive DHT evaluation study phases. We found that the study phases of the eHealth evaluation cycle are unequally studied and most attention is paid to the effectiveness study phase. In addition, the majority of the studies used an RCT design. However, in order to successfully develop and implement novel DHTs, stimulating equal evaluation of the sequential study phases of DHTs and selecting the right evaluation approach that fits the iterative nature of technology might be of the utmost importance.

Indexed as

TelemedicineBiomedical TechnologyCOVID-19Digital HealthHumansDHIdigital healthdigital health interventione-healthehealthevaluationhealth technologieshealth technologyliterature reviewmethodsscoping reviewtelehealthtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID39196643
PMCPMC11391152

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.