数字健康技术(DHT)评估研究的方法学方法和作者报告的局限性:对DHT干预癌症、糖尿病和心血管疾病的范围审查。

PLOS digital health Pub Date : 2025-04-24 eCollection Date: 2025-04-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000806
Nyangi Gityamwi, Jo Armes, Jenny Harris, Emma Ream, Richard Green, Anand Ahankari, Alison Callwood, Athena Ip, Jane Cockle-Hearne, Wendy Grosvenor, Agnieszka Lemanska, Simon S Skene
{"title":"数字健康技术(DHT)评估研究的方法学方法和作者报告的局限性:对DHT干预癌症、糖尿病和心血管疾病的范围审查。","authors":"Nyangi Gityamwi, Jo Armes, Jenny Harris, Emma Ream, Richard Green, Anand Ahankari, Alison Callwood, Athena Ip, Jane Cockle-Hearne, Wendy Grosvenor, Agnieszka Lemanska, Simon S Skene","doi":"10.1371/journal.pdig.0000806","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":74465,"journal":{"name":"PLOS digital health","volume":"4 4","pages":"e0000806"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12021190/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"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.\",\"authors\":\"Nyangi Gityamwi, Jo Armes, Jenny Harris, Emma Ream, Richard Green, Anand Ahankari, Alison Callwood, Athena Ip, Jane Cockle-Hearne, Wendy Grosvenor, Agnieszka Lemanska, Simon S Skene\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pdig.0000806\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74465,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLOS digital health\",\"volume\":\"4 4\",\"pages\":\"e0000806\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12021190/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLOS digital health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000806\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLOS digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000806","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

数字卫生技术具有改善卫生服务的潜力,近几十年来,由于技术进步,采用数字卫生技术的人数激增。目前尚未确定适合于产生关于DHT的高质量证据的最佳评价方法;传统的比较设计存在一些局限性。本研究旨在扩大文献范围,强调常用的方法学方法及其局限性,为设计稳健的DHT评估研究提供参考。根据乔安娜布里格斯研究所(JBI)的范围审查指南进行范围审查。使用CINAHL (EBSCO)、MEDLINE (EBSCOhost)、PsycINFO (EBSCO)、EMBASE(爱思唯尔)和Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics)数据库进行系统搜索,使用迭代开发的搜索词。我们选择了2016年1月至2022年3月期间发表的英文研究,重点关注了评估DHT对患有癌症、糖尿病或心血管疾病的成人(≥18岁)的技术-用户交互或异步功能有效性的初步研究。经过筛选和筛选,最终的文章数量为140张。对数据进行描述性分析(频率和百分比),并按主题进行总结。结果显示,大多数研究(n = 104, 74.3%)采用标准的双臂平行RCT设计,在所有纳入的研究中,近一半(n = 65, 47.1%)采用常规/标准护理作为首选比较剂。在回顾的104项比较研究中,最常报道的是招募方面的限制(n = 70, 37%),其次是评估/测量技术方面的限制(n = 57, 27%),混杂因素的存在(n = 50, 24%)和研究持续时间短(n = 24, 11%)。审查强调需要考虑采用包容性的方法来招募和采用新兴的方法方法,这些方法方法解释了DHT干预措施不可隐瞒的性质所造成的快节奏、多成分和群体污染问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信