ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024
Approaches to Evaluating Digital Health Technologies: Scoping Review.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Co-research in the development of AI and digital health tools for cancer management and care: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Characterizing Behaviors That Influence the Implementation of Digital-Based Interventions in Health Care: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Embracing Digital as a Paradigm Shift in Medical Affairs.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Review
- Developing a Core Outcome Set for the Evaluation of Remote Patient Monitoring Interventions Using the Sextuple Aim: Modified Delphi Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Global Landscape and Translational Trajectories of Pelvic Floor Muscle Rehabilitation for Urinary Incontinence.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Current Practices and a Novel Operational Framework for Planning Research on Digital Health Promotion Interventions From Development to Implementation: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Navigating the complexities of digital health technology implementation: a scoping review of barriers and facilitators.Implementation science communications · 2026Review
- The past, present and future use of technology-enabled physical activity interventions in clinical and non-clinical populations: a bibliometric trend analysis across four decades.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Regression discontinuity in Time: Evaluating the impact of evolving digital health interventions.International journal of medical informatics · 2025Article
- Stakeholder Perspectives on Early Feasibility Studies for Digital Health Technologies in the European Union: Qualitative Interview Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Beyond the Bot: A Dual-Phase Framework for Evaluating AI Chatbot Simulations in Nursing Education.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.