Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Editorial
. 2016 Nov;51(5):843-851.
doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.06.008.

Evaluating Digital Health Interventions: Key Questions and Approaches

Affiliations
Editorial

Evaluating Digital Health Interventions: Key Questions and Approaches

Elizabeth Murray et al. Am J Prev Med. 2016 Nov.

Abstract

Digital health interventions have enormous potential as scalable tools to improve health and healthcare delivery by improving effectiveness, efficiency, accessibility, safety, and personalization. Achieving these improvements requires a cumulative knowledge base to inform development and deployment of digital health interventions. However, evaluations of digital health interventions present special challenges. This paper aims to examine these challenges and outline an evaluation strategy in terms of the research questions needed to appraise such interventions. As they are at the intersection of biomedical, behavioral, computing, and engineering research, methods drawn from all of these disciplines are required. Relevant research questions include defining the problem and the likely benefit of the digital health intervention, which in turn requires establishing the likely reach and uptake of the intervention, the causal model describing how the intervention will achieve its intended benefit, key components, and how they interact with one another, and estimating overall benefit in terms of effectiveness, cost effectiveness, and harms. Although RCTs are important for evaluation of effectiveness and cost effectiveness, they are best undertaken only when: (1) the intervention and its delivery package are stable; (2) these can be implemented with high fidelity; and (3) there is a reasonable likelihood that the overall benefits will be clinically meaningful (improved outcomes or equivalent outcomes at lower cost). Broadening the portfolio of research questions and evaluation methods will help with developing the necessary knowledge base to inform decisions on policy, practice, and research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest.

All authors were part of a workshop supported by funding for an international expert workshop from the Medical Research Council (MRC), UK, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office for Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR), USA, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, USA.

References

    1. Free C, Knight R, Robertson S, et al. Smoking cessation support delivered via mobile phone text messaging (txt2stop): a single-blind, randomised trial. Lancet. 2011 Jul 2;378(9785):49–55. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zhuo X, Zhang P, Barker L, Albright A, Thompson TJ, Gregg E. The lifetime cost of diabetes and its implications for diabetes prevention. Diabetes Care. 2014 Sep;37(9):2557–2564. - PubMed
    1. Harris J, Felix L, Miners A, et al. Adaptive e-learning to improve dietary behaviour: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(37):1–160. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Peyrot M, Rubin RR. Access to diabetes self-management education. Diabetes Educ. 2008 Jan-Feb;34(1):90–97. - PubMed
    1. Bailey JV, Murray E, Rait G, et al. Interactive computer-based interventions for sexual health promotion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(9):CD006483. - PubMed

Publication types