Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40239207›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

How to Refine and Prioritize Key Performance Indicators for Digital Health Interventions: Tutorial on Using Consensus Methodology to Enable Meaningful Evaluation of Novel Digital Health Interventions.

Catherine McCabe, Leona Connolly, Yuri Quintana, Arielle Weir, Anne Moen, Martin Ingvar, Margaret McCann, Carmel Doyle, Mary Hughes, Maria Brenner

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Catherine McCabeSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0597-8580
Leona ConnollySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3470-1406
Yuri QuintanaDepartment of Clinical Informatics, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6583-0257
Arielle WeirSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1741-9524
Anne MoenInstitute for Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3825-9355
Martin IngvarDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9041-5714
Margaret McCannSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7925-6396
Carmel DoyleSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2031-1004
Mary HughesSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7275-8289
Maria BrennerSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8779-5288

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital health interventions (DHIs) have the potential to improve health care and health promotion. However, there is a lack of guidance in the literature for the development, refinement, and prioritization of key performance indicators (KPIs) for the evaluation of DHIs. This paper presents a 4-stage process used in the Gravitate Health project based on stakeholder consultation and consensus for this purpose. The Gravitate Health consortium, which comprises private and public partners from across Europe and the United States, is developing innovative digital health solutions in the form of Federated Open-Source Platform and G-lens to present users with individualized digital information about their medicines. The first stage of this was the consultative process for the development of KPIs involving stakeholder (Gravitate Health project leads) consultations at the planning stages of the project. This resulted in the formation of an extensive list of KPIs organized into 7 categories. The second stage was conducting a scoping review, which confirmed the need for extensive stakeholder consultation in all stages of the KPI development, refinement, and prioritization process. The third stage was a period of further consultation with all consortium members, which resulted in the elimination of 1 category of KPIs. The fourth stage involved using the Delphi technique for refining and prioritizing the remaining 6 categories of KPIs. It is unusual to use this methodology in a nonresearch exercise, but it provided a clear consultative framework and structure that facilitated the achievement of consensus within a large consortium of 250 members on a substantial list of KPIs for the project. Consortium members ranked the relevance and importance of each KPI. The final list of KPIs provides substantial indicators sensitive to the needs of a broad group of stakeholders that are being used to capture real-world data in developing and evaluating DHIs.

Indexed as

Delphi TechniqueDigital HealthQuality Indicators, Health CareTelemedicineConsensusHumansUnited Statesconsensus methodologyconsultationDelphi techniquedigital health interventionsdrug-related side effects and adverse reactionskey performance indicatorsreferral

Identifiers

PMID40239207
PMCPMC12044311

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.