Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41380024›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025

Simulation of Clinical Visits as a Novel Approach to Evaluate Digital Health in Multiple Sclerosis: Simulation Study.

Riley Bove, Luca Capezzuto, Imogen West, Simon Dryden, Saira Ghafur, Jack Halligan, Stanislas Hubeaux, Agne Kazlauskaite

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 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

8 authors.

Riley BoveDepartment of Neurology, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2034-8800
Luca CapezzutoF. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 000-0002-2186-2406
Imogen WestRoche Products Limited, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0000-9452-9113
Simon DrydenProva Health, Bermondsey Street, London, SE1 3XF, United Kingdom, +44 7742161980.ORCID 0000-0001-6713-0334
Saira GhafurProva Health, Bermondsey Street, London, SE1 3XF, United Kingdom, +44 7742161980.ORCID 0000-0003-4487-6904
Jack HalliganProva Health, Bermondsey Street, London, SE1 3XF, United Kingdom, +44 7742161980.ORCID 0000-0002-8094-5420
Stanislas HubeauxF. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6578-4147
Agne KazlauskaiteF. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0001-1609-4588

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Efforts are being made to integrate digital health technologies into clinical care for multiple sclerosis (MS) to improve patient monitoring. Efficiently probing how they might impact clinical care could streamline digital tool development. The Floodlight digital tool, comprising 5 smartphone sensor-based tests, was used to generate health-related data on patient function and symptoms in a clinical simulation. Objective: The study had 3 objectives: (1) assess the utility of simulated clinical encounters as a research methodology for exploring the introduction of digital health technologies into clinical practice in MS, (2) confirm the fidelity of the simulated environment and patient cases developed and understand what metrics (eg, workflow, comprehensive evaluation) could be generated, and (3) generate insights into the utility of digitally collected data, including usability, clinical decision contribution, and impact on workflows, in clinical practice. Methods: A total of 2 patient cases consisting of clinical, radiological, and digital health data were developed with clinician input. US-based neurologists prepared for and conducted 2 simulated teleconsultations each, with an actor briefed on case profiles. Floodlight data were available, via the Floodlight MS™ Health Care Professional Portal, for 1 of the 2 consultations. Participant neurologists completed interviews and surveys assessing the fidelity of the cases presented, user experience and workflow metrics, patient concerns identified, care decisions made, and confidence in making decisions. Results: All 10 neurologists indicated that the simulations were high-fidelity representations of real consultations. Using the Floodlight technology for the first time, median time taken to prepare for and conduct the consultation was ~1.7-2 minutes longer, with slightly greater mental effort reported by participants, compared with not using the tool. The Floodlight MS Health Care Professional Portal scored an "above average" 79 on the System Usability Scale and an "acceptable" Net Promoter Score of 10. In total, 6 of the 10 neurologists "strongly agreed" that it was easier and quicker to identify patient concerns when they had access to the patient-generated Floodlight data to prepare for their encounters than when they did not. Overall, more care and management decisions were taken when the digital tool was used (37 vs 29). Of those 37 decisions, Floodlight data were reported as a trigger for 20 decisions, always in combination with other elements including patient history (20/20) and clinical exam findings (9/20). Conclusions: These findings advance our understanding of clinical simulation as a method for evaluating digital tools and other innovative technologies for MS care. High-fidelity patient cases could be provided for the mock teleconsultations, and the simulated clinical environment was useful for evaluating usability and utility of a new digital tool-yielding preliminary evidence on how digital data could be accessed and utilized by neurologists to support routine MS care.

Indexed as

Multiple SclerosisTelemedicineDigital HealthFemaleHumansMaleSmartphoneWorkflowclinical simulationclinical utilitydigital healthdigital health technologyimpact on clinical workflowsmultiple sclerosispatient remote assessmentsmartphoneteleconsultations

Identifiers

PMID41380024
PMCPMC12697915

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.