Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40273070›Full record

ReviewPLOS digital health2025

Methodological approaches and author-reported limitations in evaluation studies of digital health technologies (DHT): A scoping review of DHT interventions for cancer, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular diseases.

Nyangi Gityamwi, Jo Armes, Jenny Harris, Emma Ream, Richard Green, Anand Ahankari, Alison Callwood, Athena Ip, Jane Cockle-Hearne, Wendy Grosvenor and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

12 authors.

Nyangi GityamwiSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5567-9300
Jo ArmesSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Jenny HarrisSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Emma ReamSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Richard GreenSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Anand AhankariSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Alison CallwoodSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Athena IpSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Jane Cockle-HearneSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Wendy GrosvenorSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Agnieszka LemanskaSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Simon S SkeneSchool of Biosciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7828-3122

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital health technology (DHT) holds the potential to improve health services, and its adoption has proliferated in recent decades owing to technological advancement. Optimal evaluation methodologies appropriate for generating quality evidence on DHT have yet to be established; traditional comparative designs present several limitations. This study aimed to scope the literature to highlight common methodological approaches used and their limitations to inform considerations for designing robust DHT evaluation studies. A scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review guidelines. A systematic search was conducted using the CINAHL (EBSCO), MEDLINE (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (EBSCO), EMBASE (Elsevier) and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) databases using iteratively developed search terms. We selected studies published in English between January 2016 and March 2022 and focussed on primary research evaluating the effectiveness of DHT with technology-user interactive or asynchronous features for adults (≥18 years) with cancer, diabetes or cardiovascular conditions. The final number of articles, after the screening and selection process, comprised 140 records. Data were analysed descriptively (frequency and percentages) and summarised thematically. Results showed most studies (n = 104, 74.3%) employed the standard two-arm parallel RCT design, with usual/standard care as the preferred comparator in nearly half (n = 65, 47.1%) of all included studies. Of the 104 comparative studies reviewed, limitations in recruitment were most frequently reported (n = 70, 37%), followed by limitations in evaluation/measurement techniques (n = 57, 27%), presence of confounding factors (n = 50, 24%) and short duration of studies (n = 24, 11%). The review highlights the need to consider inclusive approaches to recruitment and adoption of the emerging methodological approaches that account for the fast-paced, multi-component and group contamination problem resulting from the unconcealable nature of DHT interventions.

Identifiers

PMID40273070
PMCPMC12021190

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.