Pong Candelyn, Tseng Rachel Marjorie Wei Wen, Tham Yih Chung, Lum Elaine
Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore.
J Med Internet Res. 2024 Dec 12;26:e53576. doi: 10.2196/53576.
Approximately 1 in 3 adults live with multiple chronic diseases. Digital health is being harnessed to improve continuity of care and management of chronic diseases. However, meaningful uptake of digital health for chronic disease management remains low. It is unclear how these innovations have been implemented and evaluated.
This scoping review aims to identify how digital health innovations for chronic disease management have been implemented and evaluated: what implementation frameworks, methods, and strategies were used; how successful these strategies were; key barriers and enablers to implementation; and lessons learned and recommendations shared by study authors.
We used the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. Five databases were searched for studies published between January 2015 and March 2023: PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and IEEE Xplore. We included primary studies of any study design with any type of digital health innovations for chronic diseases that benefit patients, caregivers, or health care professionals. We extracted study characteristics; type of digital health innovation; implementation frameworks, strategies, and outcome measures used; barriers and enablers to implementation; lessons learned; and recommendations reported by study authors. We used established taxonomies to synthesize extracted data. Extracted barriers and enablers were grouped into categories for reporting. Descriptive statistics were used to consolidate extracted data.
A total of 252 studies were included, comprising mainly mobile health (107/252, 42.5%), eHealth (61/252, 24.2%), and telehealth (97/252, 38.5%), with some studies involving more than 1 innovation. Only 23 studies (23/252, 9.1%) reported using an implementation science theory, model, or framework; the most common were implementation theories, classic theories, and determinant frameworks, with 7 studies each. Of 252 studies, 144 (57.1%) used 2 to 5 implementation strategies. Frequently used strategies were "obtain and use patient or consumer feedback" (196/252, 77.8%); "audit and provide feedback" (106/252, 42.1%); and piloting before implementation or "stage implementation scale-up" (85/252, 33.7%). Commonly measured implementation outcomes were acceptability, feasibility, and adoption of the digital innovation. Of 252 studies, 247 studies (98%) did not measure service outcomes, while patient health outcomes were measured in 89 studies (35.3%). The main method used to assess outcomes was surveys (173/252, 68.7%), followed by interviews (95/252, 37.7%). Key barriers impacting implementation were data privacy concerns and patient preference for in-person consultations. Key enablers were training for health care workers and personalization of digital health features to patient needs.
This review generated a summary of how digital health in chronic disease management is currently implemented and evaluated and serves as a useful resource for clinicians, researchers, health system managers, and policy makers planning real-world implementation. Future studies should investigate whether using implementation science frameworks, including how well they are used, would yield better outcomes compared to not using them.
约三分之一的成年人患有多种慢性病。数字健康正被用于改善慢性病的护理连续性和管理。然而,慢性病管理中数字健康的实际应用率仍然很低。目前尚不清楚这些创新是如何实施和评估的。
本综述旨在确定慢性病管理数字健康创新的实施和评估方式:使用了哪些实施框架、方法和策略;这些策略的成功程度如何;实施的关键障碍和推动因素;以及研究作者分享的经验教训和建议。
我们采用乔安娜·布里格斯研究所的综述方法。检索了五个数据库,查找2015年1月至2023年3月发表的研究:PubMed、Scopus、CINAHL、PsycINFO和IEEE Xplore。我们纳入了任何研究设计的原发性研究,这些研究涉及任何类型的有益于患者、护理人员或医疗保健专业人员的慢性病数字健康创新。我们提取了研究特征;数字健康创新的类型;使用的实施框架、策略和结果指标;实施的障碍和推动因素;经验教训;以及研究作者报告的建议。我们使用既定的分类法对提取的数据进行综合。提取的障碍和推动因素被归类进行报告。使用描述性统计来整合提取的数据。
共纳入252项研究,主要包括移动健康(107/252,42.5%)、电子健康(61/252,24.2%)和远程医疗(97/252,