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
. 2020 Aug 12;22(8):e17774.
doi: 10.2196/17774.

Online Guide for Electronic Health Evaluation Approaches: Systematic Scoping Review and Concept Mapping Study

Collaborators, Affiliations

Online Guide for Electronic Health Evaluation Approaches: Systematic Scoping Review and Concept Mapping Study

Tobias N Bonten et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Background: Despite the increase in use and high expectations of digital health solutions, scientific evidence about the effectiveness of electronic health (eHealth) and other aspects such as usability and accuracy is lagging behind. eHealth solutions are complex interventions, which require a wide array of evaluation approaches that are capable of answering the many different questions that arise during the consecutive study phases of eHealth development and implementation. However, evaluators seem to struggle in choosing suitable evaluation approaches in relation to a specific study phase.

Objective: The objective of this project was to provide a structured overview of the existing eHealth evaluation approaches, with the aim of assisting eHealth evaluators in selecting a suitable approach for evaluating their eHealth solution at a specific evaluation study phase.

Methods: Three consecutive steps were followed. Step 1 was a systematic scoping review, summarizing existing eHealth evaluation approaches. Step 2 was a concept mapping study asking eHealth researchers about approaches for evaluating eHealth. In step 3, the results of step 1 and 2 were used to develop an "eHealth evaluation cycle" and subsequently compose the online "eHealth methodology guide."

Results: The scoping review yielded 57 articles describing 50 unique evaluation approaches. The concept mapping study questioned 43 eHealth researchers, resulting in 48 unique approaches. After removing duplicates, 75 unique evaluation approaches remained. Thereafter, an "eHealth evaluation cycle" was developed, consisting of six evaluation study phases: conceptual and planning, design, development and usability, pilot (feasibility), effectiveness (impact), uptake (implementation), and all phases. Finally, the "eHealth methodology guide" was composed by assigning the 75 evaluation approaches to the specific study phases of the "eHealth evaluation cycle."

Conclusions: Seventy-five unique evaluation approaches were found in the literature and suggested by eHealth researchers, which served as content for the online "eHealth methodology guide." By assisting evaluators in selecting a suitable evaluation approach in relation to a specific study phase of the "eHealth evaluation cycle," the guide aims to enhance the quality, safety, and successful long-term implementation of novel eHealth solutions.

Keywords: concept mapping; digital health; eHealth; evaluation; health technology assessment; mHealth; methodology; scoping review; study design.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram of the article selection process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Venn diagram showing the origin of the 75 unique evaluation approaches.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Go-Zone graph. The numbers refer to the evaluation approaches listed in Table 3.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Concept map showing evaluation approaches grouped into five labeled clusters. The numbers refer to the approaches listed in Table 3.
Figure 5
Figure 5
The “eHealth evaluation cycle” derived from empirical results of the scoping literature review and concept map study.

References

    1. From innovation to implementation: eHealth in the WHO European Region. World Health Organization. 2016. [2020-01-01]. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/302331/From-Innovati....
    1. de la Torre-Díez I, López-Coronado M, Vaca C, Aguado JS, de Castro C. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness studies of telemedicine, electronic, and mobile health systems in the literature: a systematic review. Telemed J E Health. 2015 Feb;21(2):81–85. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2014.0053. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/25474190 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sanyal C, Stolee P, Juzwishin D, Husereau D. Economic evaluations of eHealth technologies: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2018;13(6):e0198112. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198112. http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198112 - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Flodgren G, Rachas A, Farmer AJ, Inzitari M, Shepperd S. Interactive telemedicine: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 07;(9):CD002098. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002098.pub2. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/26343551 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Marcolino MS, Oliveira JAQ, D'Agostino M, Ribeiro AL, Alkmim MBM, Novillo-Ortiz D. The Impact of mHealth Interventions: Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Jan 17;6(1):e23. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.8873. https://mhealth.jmir.org/2018/1/e23/ - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources