Suppr超能文献

评估电子健康工具的质量和影响:系统文献综述与叙述性综合分析

Assessing the Quality and Impact of eHealth Tools: Systematic Literature Review and Narrative Synthesis.

作者信息

Jacob Christine, Lindeque Johan, Klein Alexander, Ivory Chris, Heuss Sabina, Peter Marc K

机构信息

FHNW - University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland, Windisch, Switzerland.

FHNW - University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland, Olten, Switzerland.

出版信息

JMIR Hum Factors. 2023 Mar 23;10:e45143. doi: 10.2196/45143.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Technological advancements have opened the path for many technology providers to easily develop and introduce eHealth tools to the public. The use of these tools is increasingly recognized as a critical quality driver in health care; however, choosing a quality tool from the myriad of tools available for a specific health need does not come without challenges.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to systematically investigate the literature to understand the different approaches and criteria used to assess the quality and impact of eHealth tools by considering sociotechnical factors (from technical, social, and organizational perspectives).

METHODS

A structured search was completed following the participants, intervention, comparators, and outcomes framework. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and ProQuest databases for studies published between January 2012 and January 2022 in English, which yielded 675 results, of which 40 (5.9%) studies met the inclusion criteria. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were followed to ensure a systematic process. Extracted data were analyzed using NVivo (QSR International), with a thematic analysis and narrative synthesis of emergent themes.

RESULTS

Similar measures from the different papers, frameworks, and initiatives were aggregated into 36 unique criteria grouped into 13 clusters. Using the sociotechnical approach, we classified the relevant criteria into technical, social, and organizational assessment criteria. Technical assessment criteria were grouped into 5 clusters: technical aspects, functionality, content, data management, and design. Social assessment criteria were grouped into 4 clusters: human centricity, health outcomes, visible popularity metrics, and social aspects. Organizational assessment criteria were grouped into 4 clusters: sustainability and scalability, health care organization, health care context, and developer.

CONCLUSIONS

This review builds on the growing body of research that investigates the criteria used to assess the quality and impact of eHealth tools and highlights the complexity and challenges facing these initiatives. It demonstrates that there is no single framework that is used uniformly to assess the quality and impact of eHealth tools. It also highlights the need for a more comprehensive approach that balances the social, organizational, and technical assessment criteria in a way that reflects the complexity and interdependence of the health care ecosystem and is aligned with the factors affecting users' adoption to ensure uptake and adherence in the long term.

摘要

背景

技术进步为众多技术供应商轻松开发电子健康工具并向公众推广开辟了道路。这些工具的使用日益被视为医疗保健中关键的质量驱动因素;然而,从众多满足特定健康需求的工具中选择一款高质量的工具并非没有挑战。

目的

本综述旨在系统地研究文献,通过考虑社会技术因素(从技术、社会和组织角度)来了解用于评估电子健康工具质量和影响的不同方法及标准。

方法

按照参与者、干预措施、对照和结局框架完成结构化检索。我们在PubMed、Cochrane、科学引文索引、Scopus和ProQuest数据库中搜索2012年1月至2022年1月期间以英文发表的研究,共获得675条结果,其中40项(5.9%)研究符合纳入标准。遵循PRISMA(系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目)指南及Cochrane干预措施系统评价手册以确保检索过程的系统性。使用NVivo(QSR国际公司)对提取的数据进行分析,并对出现的主题进行主题分析和叙述性综合。

结果

不同论文、框架和倡议中的类似指标被汇总为36个独特标准,分为13个类别。采用社会技术方法,我们将相关标准分为技术、社会和组织评估标准。技术评估标准分为5个类别:技术方面、功能、内容、数据管理和设计。社会评估标准分为4个类别:以用户为中心、健康结局、可见的流行度指标和社会方面。组织评估标准分为4个类别:可持续性和可扩展性、医疗保健机构、医疗保健环境和开发者。

结论

本综述建立在越来越多研究用于评估电子健康工具质量和影响的标准的基础上,突出了这些倡议面临的复杂性和挑战。它表明不存在统一用于评估电子健康工具质量和影响的单一框架。它还强调需要一种更全面的方法,以一种反映医疗保健生态系统的复杂性和相互依存性并与影响用户采用的因素相一致的方式,平衡社会、组织和技术评估标准,以确保长期的采用和依从性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/43ed/10131913/ed532908c8ed/humanfactors_v10i1e45143_fig1.jpg

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

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验