Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39805104›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

The CeHRes Roadmap 2.0: Update of a Holistic Framework for Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of eHealth Technologies.

Hanneke Kip, Nienke Beerlage-de Jong, Lisette J E W C van Gemert-Pijnen, Saskia M Kelders

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

4 authors.

Hanneke KipSection of Psychology, Health & Technology, Centre for eHealth and Wellbeing, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6661-2128
Nienke Beerlage-de JongSection of Psychology, Health & Technology, Centre for eHealth and Wellbeing, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1567-5196
Lisette J E W C van Gemert-PijnenSection of Psychology, Health & Technology, Centre for eHealth and Wellbeing, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6511-7240
Saskia M KeldersSection of Psychology, Health & Technology, Centre for eHealth and Wellbeing, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8949-6871

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To ensure that an eHealth technology fits with its intended users, other stakeholders, and the context within which it will be used, thorough development, implementation, and evaluation processes are necessary. The CeHRes (Centre for eHealth and Wellbeing Research) Roadmap is a framework that can help shape these processes. While it has been successfully used in research and practice, new developments and insights have arisen since the Roadmap's first publication in 2011, not only within the domain of eHealth but also within the different disciplines in which the Roadmap is grounded. Because of these new developments and insights, a revision of the Roadmap was imperative. This paper aims to present the updated pillars and phases of the CeHRes Roadmap 2.0. The Roadmap was updated based on four types of sources: (1) experiences with its application in research; (2) literature reviews on eHealth development, implementation, and evaluation; (3) discussions with eHealth researchers; and (4) new insights and updates from relevant frameworks and theories. The updated pillars state that eHealth development, implementation, and evaluation (1) are ongoing and intertwined processes; (2) have a holistic approach in which context, people, and technology are intertwined; (3) consist of continuous evaluation cycles; (4) require active stakeholder involvement from the start; and (5) are based on interdisciplinary collaboration. The CeHRes Roadmap 2.0 consists of 5 interrelated phases, of which the first is the contextual inquiry, in which an overview of the involved stakeholders, the current situation, and points of improvement is created. The findings from the contextual inquiry are specified in the value specification, in which the foundation for the to-be-developed eHealth technology is created by formulating values and requirements, preliminarily selecting behavior change techniques and persuasive features, and initiating a business model. In the Design phase, the requirements are translated into several lo-fi and hi-fi prototypes that are iteratively tested with end users and other stakeholders. A version of the technology is rolled out in the Operationalization phase, using the business model and an implementation plan. In the Summative Evaluation phase, the impact, uptake, and working mechanisms are evaluated using a multimethod approach. All phases are interrelated by continuous formative evaluation cycles that ensure coherence between outcomes of phases and alignment with stakeholder needs. While the CeHRes Roadmap 2.0 consists of the same phases as the first version, the objectives and pillars have been updated and adapted, reflecting the increased emphasis on behavior change, implementation, and evaluation as a process. There is a need for more empirical studies that apply and reflect on the CeHRes Roadmap 2.0 to provide points of improvement because just as with any eHealth technology, the Roadmap has to be constantly improved based on the input of its users.

Indexed as

TelemedicineHumansCeHRes RoadmapeHealth developmenteHealth frameworkeHealth implementationhuman-centered designparticipatory developmentpersuasive design

Identifiers

PMID39805104
PMCPMC11773290

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.