ReviewDigital health
A scoping review of frameworks evaluating digital health applications.
Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Despite rapid technological advances, the adoption and deployment of digital health and virtual reality (VR) applications in healthcare appears to be progressing slowly. This scoping review is part of the Scale-Up4Rehab (SU4R) project, which aims to create a virtual rehabilitation clinic hosting high-quality digital health interventions. The aim of this review was to identify existing high-quality digital health evaluation frameworks, and from these, extract criteria to inform a new set of guidelines for assessing the applications that will be hosted on the SU4R platform. Methods: The review followed Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework and was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search strategy that included relevant keywords encompassing the domains of interest; digital health, evaluation frameworks and digital health applications was created between January 2007 and December 2023, across seven medical and computer science databases. Data from each study were extracted by a team of four reviewers using a customized data extraction tool. Results: The review included 18 frameworks from 11 countries, incorporating 775 criteria. Nine evaluation frameworks were identified from the included papers (n = 12) and a further nine frameworks from grey literature. The criteria were grouped into 19 categories, with the largest proportion of identified criteria grouped into the categories 'Data Security and Privacy' and 'Validation'. Conclusion: The criteria extracted from the reviewed frameworks will contribute to the creation of a comprehensive evaluation framework. This new evaluation framework will form part of the approval process for the SU4R Virtual Rehabilitation Clinic. This will facilitate a rigorous selection process for the digital health and VR applications to be hosted on the virtual clinic.
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.