scholarly journals Online Guide for Electronic Health Evaluation Approaches: Systematic Scoping Review and Concept Mapping Study

10.2196/17774 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (8) ◽  
pp. e17774
Author(s):  
Tobias N Bonten ◽  
Anneloek Rauwerdink ◽  
Jeremy C Wyatt ◽  
Marise J Kasteleyn ◽  
Leonard Witkamp ◽  
...  

Background Despite the increase in use and high expectations of digital health solutions, scientific evidence about the effectiveness of electronic health (eHealth) and other aspects such as usability and accuracy is lagging behind. eHealth solutions are complex interventions, which require a wide array of evaluation approaches that are capable of answering the many different questions that arise during the consecutive study phases of eHealth development and implementation. However, evaluators seem to struggle in choosing suitable evaluation approaches in relation to a specific study phase. Objective The objective of this project was to provide a structured overview of the existing eHealth evaluation approaches, with the aim of assisting eHealth evaluators in selecting a suitable approach for evaluating their eHealth solution at a specific evaluation study phase. Methods Three consecutive steps were followed. Step 1 was a systematic scoping review, summarizing existing eHealth evaluation approaches. Step 2 was a concept mapping study asking eHealth researchers about approaches for evaluating eHealth. In step 3, the results of step 1 and 2 were used to develop an “eHealth evaluation cycle” and subsequently compose the online “eHealth methodology guide.” Results The scoping review yielded 57 articles describing 50 unique evaluation approaches. The concept mapping study questioned 43 eHealth researchers, resulting in 48 unique approaches. After removing duplicates, 75 unique evaluation approaches remained. Thereafter, an “eHealth evaluation cycle” was developed, consisting of six evaluation study phases: conceptual and planning, design, development and usability, pilot (feasibility), effectiveness (impact), uptake (implementation), and all phases. Finally, the “eHealth methodology guide” was composed by assigning the 75 evaluation approaches to the specific study phases of the “eHealth evaluation cycle.” Conclusions Seventy-five unique evaluation approaches were found in the literature and suggested by eHealth researchers, which served as content for the online “eHealth methodology guide.” By assisting evaluators in selecting a suitable evaluation approach in relation to a specific study phase of the “eHealth evaluation cycle,” the guide aims to enhance the quality, safety, and successful long-term implementation of novel eHealth solutions.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias N Bonten ◽  
Anneloek Rauwerdink ◽  
Jeremy C Wyatt ◽  
Marise J Kasteleyn ◽  
Leonard Witkamp ◽  
...  

UNSTRUCTURED Despite the increase in use and high expectations of digital health solutions, scientific evidence about the effectiveness of electronic health (eHealth) and other aspects such as usability and accuracy is lagging behind. eHealth solutions are complex interventions, which require a wide array of evaluation approaches that are capable of answering the many different questions that arise during the consecutive study phases of eHealth development and implementation. However, evaluators seem to struggle in choosing suitable evaluation approaches in relation to a specific study phase. The objective of this project was to provide a structured overview of the existing eHealth evaluation approaches, with the aim of assisting eHealth evaluators in selecting a suitable approach for evaluating their eHealth solution at a specific evaluation study phase. Three consecutive steps were followed. Step 1 was a systematic scoping review, summarizing existing eHealth evaluation approaches. Step 2 was a concept mapping study asking eHealth researchers about approaches for evaluating eHealth. In step 3, the results of step 1 and 2 were used to develop an “eHealth evaluation cycle” and subsequently compose the online “eHealth methodology guide.” The scoping review yielded 57 articles describing 50 unique evaluation approaches. The concept mapping study questioned 43 eHealth researchers, resulting in 48 unique approaches. After removing duplicates, 75 unique evaluation approaches remained. Thereafter, an “eHealth evaluation cycle” was developed, consisting of six evaluation study phases: conceptual and planning, design, development and usability, pilot (feasibility), effectiveness (impact), uptake (implementation), and all phases. Finally, the “eHealth methodology guide” was composed by assigning the 75 evaluation approaches to the specific study phases of the “eHealth evaluation cycle.” Seventy-five unique evaluation approaches were found in the literature and suggested by eHealth researchers, which served as content for the online “eHealth methodology guide.” By assisting evaluators in selecting a suitable evaluation approach in relation to a specific study phase of the “eHealth evaluation cycle,” the guide aims to enhance the quality, safety, and successful long-term implementation of novel eHealth solutions.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias N Bonten ◽  
Anneloek Rauwerdink ◽  
Jeremy C Wyatt ◽  
Marise J Kasteleyn ◽  
Leonard Witkamp ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Despite the increase in use and high expectations of digital health solutions, scientific evidence about the effectiveness of electronic health (eHealth) and other aspects such as usability and accuracy is lagging behind. eHealth solutions are complex interventions, which require a wide array of evaluation approaches that are capable of answering the many different questions that arise during the consecutive study phases of eHealth development and implementation. However, evaluators seem to struggle in choosing suitable evaluation approaches in relation to a specific study phase. OBJECTIVE The objective of this project was to provide a structured overview of the existing eHealth evaluation approaches, with the aim of assisting eHealth evaluators in selecting a suitable approach for evaluating their eHealth solution at a specific evaluation study phase. METHODS Three consecutive steps were followed. Step 1 was a systematic scoping review, summarizing existing eHealth evaluation approaches. Step 2 was a concept mapping study asking eHealth researchers about approaches for evaluating eHealth. In step 3, the results of step 1 and 2 were used to develop an “eHealth evaluation cycle” and subsequently compose the online “eHealth methodology guide.” RESULTS The scoping review yielded 57 articles describing 50 unique evaluation approaches. The concept mapping study questioned 43 eHealth researchers, resulting in 48 unique approaches. After removing duplicates, 75 unique evaluation approaches remained. Thereafter, an “eHealth evaluation cycle” was developed, consisting of six evaluation study phases: conceptual and planning, design, development and usability, pilot (feasibility), effectiveness (impact), uptake (implementation), and all phases. Finally, the “eHealth methodology guide” was composed by assigning the 75 evaluation approaches to the specific study phases of the “eHealth evaluation cycle.” CONCLUSIONS Seventy-five unique evaluation approaches were found in the literature and suggested by eHealth researchers, which served as content for the online “eHealth methodology guide.” By assisting evaluators in selecting a suitable evaluation approach in relation to a specific study phase of the “eHealth evaluation cycle,” the guide aims to enhance the quality, safety, and successful long-term implementation of novel eHealth solutions.


10.2196/23642 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (8) ◽  
pp. e23642
Author(s):  
Tobias N Bonten ◽  
Anneloek Rauwerdink ◽  
Jeremy C Wyatt ◽  
Marise J Kasteleyn ◽  
Leonard Witkamp ◽  
...  


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tina Quasdorf ◽  
Lauren Clack ◽  
Franziska Laporte Uribe ◽  
Daniela Holle ◽  
Martin Berwig ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Complex interventions in health care are characterized by multiple interacting components as well as by numerous nonlinear interactions with the social systems within which they are being implemented. The process of developing, evaluating and implementing complex interventions is therefore challenging. Established guidance such as the MRC (Medical Research Council) framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions refers to process evaluations as an integral part of the development of complex evidence-based interventions. Even though the need for process evaluations is recognized, the realization of such approaches is challenging because methodological instruction is sparse, and the phenomenon of interest is complex. A number of theoretical approaches indicating how to conduct process evaluations of complex interventions in health care exist, but a systematic and comprehensive overview of these is missing. Thus, the objective of the systematic scoping review described herein is to provide an overview and analysis of theoretical approaches suitable for the planning and conducting of process evaluations. Methods The design and conduct of this review will follow the procedures of a systematic scoping review. The search strategy will be developed following the BeHEMoTh (Behaviour of interest; Health context; Exclusions; Models or Theories) template which has been conceptualized for structured reviews of theory. The systematic search of the MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL (via EBSCO) and PsycInfo (via EBSCO) electronic databases will be complemented by “hand searching” techniques. Study selection, data extraction, and data analysis will be performed by tandems of two researchers independently of each other. Divergent decisions and judgements between the two researchers will be discussed by the whole review team. Discussion The findings from this scoping review will provide an overview and comparison of theoretical approaches suitable for process evaluations of complex interventions in health care. The review results will support researchers in choosing the theoretical approach that best fits the respective focus of their process evaluation study. Systematic review registration This study has been registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) under registration number CRD42020211732.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Van C Willis ◽  
Kelly Jean Thomas Craig ◽  
Yalda Yabbarpour ◽  
Elisabeth L Scheufele ◽  
Yull E Arriaga ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Digital transformation of primary care practices, including the use digital health interventions (DHIs), has yet to be systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVE To identify and describe the scope and use of current DHIs for preventive care in primary care settings. METHODS A scoping review to identify literature published from 2014 to 2020 was conducted across multiple databases using keywords and MeSH terms covering primary care professionals AND prevention and care management AND digital health. A subgroup analysis identified relevant studies conducted in US primary care settings excluding DHIs that use the electronic health record (EHR) as a retrospective data capture tool. Technology descriptions, outcomes (e.g., healthcare performance and implementation science), and study quality as per Oxford Levels of Evidence were abstracted. RESULTS The search yielded 5,274 citations of which 1,060 full-texts were identified. Following a subgroup analysis, 241 articles met inclusion criteria. Studies primarily examined DHIs among health information technology including EHRs (69%), clinical decision support (41%), telehealth (37%), or multiple technologies (61%). DHIs were predominantly used for tertiary prevention (55%). Of the core primary care functions, comprehensiveness was addressed most frequently (87%). DHI users were providers (85%), patients (46%), or multiples (37%). Reported outcomes were primarily clinical (70%) and statistically significant improvements were common (69%). Results were summarized across five topics for the most novel/distinct DHIs: population-centered, patient-centered, care access expansion, panel-centered (dashboarding), and application-driven DHIs. Quality of the included studies was moderate-to-low. CONCLUSIONS Preventive DHIs used in primary care settings demonstrated meaningful improvements in both clinical and non-clinical outcomes across user types; however, adoption and implementation in the US was limited to primarily electronic health record-centric platforms and users were mainly clinicians receiving alerts regarding care management for their patients. Evaluation of negative results, effects on health disparities, and many other gaps remain to be explored.


2020 ◽  
Vol 133 ◽  
pp. 104032
Author(s):  
Anneloek Rauwerdink ◽  
Marise J. Kasteleyn ◽  
Joke A. Haafkens ◽  
Niels H. Chavannes ◽  
Marlies P. Schijven

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document