Public Understanding and Expectations of Digital Health Evidence Generation: Focus Group Study.

IF 2 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Paulina Bondaronek, Jingfeng Li, Henry W W Potts
{"title":"Public Understanding and Expectations of Digital Health Evidence Generation: Focus Group Study.","authors":"Paulina Bondaronek, Jingfeng Li, Henry W W Potts","doi":"10.2196/56523","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The rapid proliferation of health apps has not been matched by a comparable growth in scientific evaluations of their effectiveness, particularly for apps available to the public. This gap has prompted ongoing debate about the types of evidence necessary to validate health apps, especially as the perceived risk level varies from wellness tools to diagnostic aids. The perspectives of the general public, who are direct stakeholders, are notably underrepresented in discussions on digital health evidence generation.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to explore public understanding and expectations regarding the evidence required to demonstrate health apps' effectiveness, including at varying levels of health risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 4 focus group discussions were held with UK residents aged 18 years and older, recruited through targeted advertisements to ensure demographic diversity. Participants discussed their views on evidence requirements for 5 hypothetical health apps, ranging from low-risk wellness apps to high-risk diagnostic tools. Focus groups were moderated using a structured guide, and data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis to extract common themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 5 key themes were established: personal needs, app functionality, social approval, expectations of testing, and authority. Participants relied on personal experiences and social endorsements when judging the effectiveness of low-risk digital health interventions, while making minimal reference to traditional scientific evidence. However, as the perceived risk of an app increased, there was a noticeable shift toward preferring evidence from authoritative sources, such as government or National Health Service endorsements.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The public have a preference for evidence that resonates on a personal level, but also show a heightened demand for authoritative guidance as the potential risk of digital health interventions increases. These perspectives should guide developers, regulators, and policy makers as they balance how to achieve innovation, safety, and public trust in the digital health landscape. Engaging the public in evidence-generation processes and ensuring transparency in app functionality and testing can bridge the gap between public expectations and regulatory standards, fostering trust in digital health technologies.</p>","PeriodicalId":14841,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Formative Research","volume":"9 ","pages":"e56523"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11769687/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Formative Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/56523","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The rapid proliferation of health apps has not been matched by a comparable growth in scientific evaluations of their effectiveness, particularly for apps available to the public. This gap has prompted ongoing debate about the types of evidence necessary to validate health apps, especially as the perceived risk level varies from wellness tools to diagnostic aids. The perspectives of the general public, who are direct stakeholders, are notably underrepresented in discussions on digital health evidence generation.

Objective: This study aimed to explore public understanding and expectations regarding the evidence required to demonstrate health apps' effectiveness, including at varying levels of health risk.

Methods: A total of 4 focus group discussions were held with UK residents aged 18 years and older, recruited through targeted advertisements to ensure demographic diversity. Participants discussed their views on evidence requirements for 5 hypothetical health apps, ranging from low-risk wellness apps to high-risk diagnostic tools. Focus groups were moderated using a structured guide, and data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis to extract common themes.

Results: A total of 5 key themes were established: personal needs, app functionality, social approval, expectations of testing, and authority. Participants relied on personal experiences and social endorsements when judging the effectiveness of low-risk digital health interventions, while making minimal reference to traditional scientific evidence. However, as the perceived risk of an app increased, there was a noticeable shift toward preferring evidence from authoritative sources, such as government or National Health Service endorsements.

Conclusions: The public have a preference for evidence that resonates on a personal level, but also show a heightened demand for authoritative guidance as the potential risk of digital health interventions increases. These perspectives should guide developers, regulators, and policy makers as they balance how to achieve innovation, safety, and public trust in the digital health landscape. Engaging the public in evidence-generation processes and ensuring transparency in app functionality and testing can bridge the gap between public expectations and regulatory standards, fostering trust in digital health technologies.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JMIR Formative Research
JMIR Formative Research Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
579
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信