文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2025

Methods to Evaluate the Effects of Internet-Based Digital Health Interventions for Citizens: Systematic Review of Reviews.

作者信息

Zanaboni Paolo, Ngangue Patrice, Mbemba Gisele Irène Claudine, Schopf Thomas Roger, Bergmo Trine Strand, Gagnon Marie-Pierre

机构信息

Norwegian Centre for E-health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.

Department of Health Sciences, Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Rouyn Noranda, QC, Canada.

出版信息

J Med Internet Res. 2018 Jun 7;20(6):e10202. doi: 10.2196/10202.


DOI:10.2196/10202
PMID:29880470
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6013714/
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Digital health can empower citizens to manage their health and address health care system problems including poor access, uncoordinated care and increasing costs. Digital health interventions are typically complex interventions. Therefore, evaluations present methodological challenges. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to provide a systematic overview of the methods used to evaluate the effects of internet-based digital health interventions for citizens. Three research questions were addressed to explore methods regarding approaches (study design), effects and indicators. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of reviews of the methods used to measure the effects of internet-based digital health interventions for citizens. The protocol was developed a priori according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols and the Cochrane Collaboration methodology for overviews of reviews. Qualitative, mixed-method, and quantitative reviews published in English or French from January 2010 to October 2016 were included. We searched for published reviews in PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINHAL and Epistemonikos. We categorized the findings based on a thematic analysis of the reviews structured around study designs, indicators, types of interventions, effects and perspectives. RESULTS: A total of 20 unique reviews were included. The most common digital health interventions for citizens were patient portals and patients' access to electronic health records, covered by 10/20 (50%) and 6/20 (30%) reviews, respectively. Quantitative approaches to study design included observational study (15/20 reviews, 75%), randomized controlled trial (13/20 reviews, 65%), quasi-experimental design (9/20 reviews, 45%), and pre-post studies (6/20 reviews, 30%). Qualitative studies or mixed methods were reported in 13/20 (65%) reviews. Five main categories of effects were identified: (1) health and clinical outcomes, (2) psychological and behavioral outcomes, (3) health care utilization, (4) system adoption and use, and (5) system attributes. Health and clinical outcomes were measured with both general indicators and disease-specific indicators and reported in 11/20 (55%) reviews. Patient-provider communication and patient satisfaction were the most investigated psychological and behavioral outcomes, reported in 13/20 (65%) and 12/20 (60%) reviews, respectively. Evaluation of health care utilization was included in 8/20 (40%) reviews, most of which focused on the economic effects on the health care system. CONCLUSIONS: Although observational studies and surveys have provided evidence of benefits and satisfaction for patients, there is still little reliable evidence from randomized controlled trials of improved health outcomes. Future evaluations of digital health interventions for citizens should focus on specific populations or chronic conditions which are more likely to achieve clinically meaningful benefits and use high-quality approaches such as randomized controlled trials. Implementation research methods should also be considered. We identified a wide range of effects and indicators, most of which focused on patients as main end users. Implications for providers and the health system should also be included in evaluations or monitoring of digital health interventions.

摘要
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ce02/6013714/6ab722e84378/jmir_v20i6e10202_fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ce02/6013714/6ab722e84378/jmir_v20i6e10202_fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ce02/6013714/6ab722e84378/jmir_v20i6e10202_fig1.jpg

相似文献

[1]
Methods to Evaluate the Effects of Internet-Based Digital Health Interventions for Citizens: Systematic Review of Reviews.

J Med Internet Res. 2018-6-7

[2]
The effectiveness of internet-based e-learning on clinician behavior and patient outcomes: a systematic review protocol.

JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015-1

[3]
[Volume and health outcomes: evidence from systematic reviews and from evaluation of Italian hospital data].

Epidemiol Prev. 2013

[4]

2016-3

[5]
How has the impact of 'care pathway technologies' on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect?

Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2008-3

[6]
The effectiveness of interventions to meet family needs of critically ill patients in an adult intensive care unit: a systematic review update.

JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016-3

[7]
Patient Portals Facilitating Engagement With Inpatient Electronic Medical Records: A Systematic Review.

J Med Internet Res. 2019-4-11

[8]
The State of Evidence in Patient Portals: Umbrella Review.

J Med Internet Res. 2020-11-11

[9]

2018-9

[10]

2017-8-21

引用本文的文献

[1]
Systematic review exploring human, AI, and hybrid health coaching in digital health interventions: trends, engagement, and lifestyle outcomes.

Front Digit Health. 2025-4-24

[2]
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.

PLOS Digit Health. 2025-4-24

[3]
Use of Go-Beyond as a Self-Directed Internet-Based Program Supporting Veterans' Transition to Civilian Life: Preliminary Usability Study.

JMIR Form Res. 2025-1-23

[4]
Consumer perspectives on the national electronic health record and barriers to its adoption in Germany: does health policy require a change in communication?

BMC Health Serv Res. 2025-1-7

[5]
Strategies to improve recruitment in mental health clinical trials: a scoping review (RE-MIND study).

Trials. 2024-12-18

[6]
Government Digital Transformation and the utilization of Basic Public Health Services by China's migrant population.

BMC Public Health. 2024-11-22

[7]
Developing a quality indicator system for evaluating internet plus home care nursing services based on the SERVQUAL model: a Delphi-analytic hierarchy process study.

PeerJ. 2024

[8]
Cost-effectiveness analysis of mHealth applications for depression in Germany using a Markov cohort simulation.

NPJ Digit Med. 2024-11-17

[9]
Digital Mental Health Interventions for Adolescents in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Scoping Review.

J Med Internet Res. 2024-10-29

[10]
Quality of the digital gp visits and characteristics of the users: retrospective observational study.

Scand J Prim Health Care. 2024-12

本文引用的文献

[1]
Impact of Information and Communication Technologies on Nursing Care: Results of an Overview of Systematic Reviews.

J Med Internet Res. 2017-4-25

[2]
Evaluating Digital Health Interventions: Key Questions and Approaches.

Am J Prev Med. 2016-11

[3]
Understanding factors affecting patient and public engagement and recruitment to digital health interventions: a systematic review of qualitative studies.

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016-9-15

[4]
Barriers and facilitators to patient and public engagement and recruitment to digital health interventions: protocol of a systematic review of qualitative studies.

BMJ Open. 2016-9-2

[5]
A Legal Framework to Support Development and Assessment of Digital Health Services.

JMIR Med Inform. 2016-5-25

[6]
Digital Health and Patient Safety.

JAMA. 2016-4-26

[7]
Guidelines for reporting of health interventions using mobile phones: mobile health (mHealth) evidence reporting and assessment (mERA) checklist.

BMJ. 2016-3-17

[8]
Personal health records for people living with HIV: a review.

AIDS Care. 2016-9

[9]
Impact of Electronic Medical Record Use on the Patient-Doctor Relationship and Communication: A Systematic Review.

J Gen Intern Med. 2016-5

[10]
Quantifying usability: an evaluation of a diabetes mHealth system on effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction metrics with associated user characteristics.

J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016-1

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索