Suppr超能文献

数字健康技术(DHT)评估研究中的方法学途径及作者报告的局限性:对癌症、糖尿病和心血管疾病的DHT干预措施的范围综述

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.

作者信息

Gityamwi Nyangi, Armes Jo, Harris Jenny, Ream Emma, Green Richard, Ahankari Anand, Callwood Alison, Ip Athena, Cockle-Hearne Jane, Grosvenor Wendy, Lemanska Agnieszka, Skene Simon S

机构信息

School of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom.

NIHR Applied Research Collaboration-Kent, Surrey and Sussex, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Hove, United Kingdom.

出版信息

PLOS Digit Health. 2025 Apr 24;4(4):e0000806. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000806. eCollection 2025 Apr.

Abstract

Digital health technology (DHT) holds the potential to improve health services, and its adoption has proliferated in recent decades owing to technological advancement. Optimal evaluation methodologies appropriate for generating quality evidence on DHT have yet to be established; traditional comparative designs present several limitations. This study aimed to scope the literature to highlight common methodological approaches used and their limitations to inform considerations for designing robust DHT evaluation studies. A scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review guidelines. A systematic search was conducted using the CINAHL (EBSCO), MEDLINE (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (EBSCO), EMBASE (Elsevier) and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) databases using iteratively developed search terms. We selected studies published in English between January 2016 and March 2022 and focussed on primary research evaluating the effectiveness of DHT with technology-user interactive or asynchronous features for adults (≥18 years) with cancer, diabetes or cardiovascular conditions. The final number of articles, after the screening and selection process, comprised 140 records. Data were analysed descriptively (frequency and percentages) and summarised thematically. Results showed most studies (n = 104, 74.3%) employed the standard two-arm parallel RCT design, with usual/standard care as the preferred comparator in nearly half (n = 65, 47.1%) of all included studies. Of the 104 comparative studies reviewed, limitations in recruitment were most frequently reported (n = 70, 37%), followed by limitations in evaluation/measurement techniques (n = 57, 27%), presence of confounding factors (n = 50, 24%) and short duration of studies (n = 24, 11%). The review highlights the need to consider inclusive approaches to recruitment and adoption of the emerging methodological approaches that account for the fast-paced, multi-component and group contamination problem resulting from the unconcealable nature of DHT interventions.

摘要

数字健康技术(DHT)有望改善医疗服务,近几十年来,由于技术进步,其应用迅速普及。然而,尚未建立适用于生成关于DHT的高质量证据的最佳评估方法;传统的比较设计存在若干局限性。本研究旨在梳理文献,以突出常用的方法学途径及其局限性,为设计强有力的DHT评估研究提供参考。我们按照乔安娜·布里格斯研究所(JBI)的循证综述指南进行了一项范围综述。使用迭代开发的检索词,在CINAHL(EBSCO)、MEDLINE(EBSCOhost)、PsycINFO(EBSCO)、EMBASE(爱思唯尔)和Web of Science(科睿唯安)数据库中进行了系统检索。我们选择了2016年1月至2022年3月期间以英文发表的研究,重点关注对具有技术用户交互或异步功能的DHT对患有癌症、糖尿病或心血管疾病的成年人(≥18岁)的有效性进行评估的原发性研究。经过筛选和选择过程后,最终纳入的文章数量为140篇。对数据进行了描述性分析(频率和百分比)并进行了主题总结。结果显示,大多数研究(n = 104,74.3%)采用了标准的双臂平行随机对照试验设计,在所有纳入研究中,近一半(n = 65,47.1%)的研究将常规/标准护理作为首选对照。在所审查的104项比较研究中,招募方面的局限性报告最为频繁(n = 70,37%),其次是评估/测量技术方面的局限性(n = 57,27%)、混杂因素的存在(n = 50,24%)和研究持续时间短(n = 24,11%)。该综述强调,需要考虑采用包容性的招募方法,并采用新兴的方法学途径,以应对DHT干预不可隐藏的性质所导致的快节奏、多成分和群体污染问题。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/261b/12021190/91d4b5e6c717/pdig.0000806.g001.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