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 Nov 11;8(11):e17577.
doi: 10.2196/17577.

Evaluating Patient-Centered Mobile Health Technologies: Definitions, Methodologies, and Outcomes

Affiliations

Evaluating Patient-Centered Mobile Health Technologies: Definitions, Methodologies, and Outcomes

Courtenay Bruce et al. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. .

Abstract

Several recently published studies and consensus statements have demonstrated that there is only modest (and in many cases, low-quality) evidence that mobile health (mHealth) can improve patient clinical outcomes such as the length of stay or reduction of readmissions. There is also uncertainty as to whether mHealth can improve patient-centered outcomes such as patient engagement or patient satisfaction. One principal challenge behind the "effectiveness" research in this field is a lack of common understanding about what it means to be effective in the digital space (ie, what should constitute a relevant outcome and how best to measure it). In this viewpoint, we call for interdisciplinary, conceptual clarity on the definitions, methodologies, and patient-centered outcomes frequently used in mHealth research. To formulate our recommendations, we used a snowballing approach to identify relevant definitions, outcomes, and methodologies related to mHealth. To begin, we drew heavily upon previously published detailed frameworks that enumerate definitions and measurements of engagement. We built upon these frameworks by extracting other relevant measures of patient-centered care, such as patient satisfaction, patient experience, and patient activation. We describe several definitional inconsistencies for key constructs in the mHealth literature. In an effort to achieve clarity, we tease apart several patient-centered care outcomes, and outline methodologies appropriate to measure each of these patient-care outcomes. By creating a common pathway linking definitions with outcomes and methodologies, we provide a possible interdisciplinary approach to evaluating mHealth technologies. With the broader goal of creating an interdisciplinary approach, we also provide several recommendations that we believe can advance mHealth research and implementation.

Keywords: digital interventions; digital technology; effectiveness; health care; information technologies; innovation; length of stay; outcomes; patient activation; patient adherence; patient centeredness; patient engagement; patient experience; patient-centered care; patient-facing technologies; quality; quality improvement; readmissions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

References

    1. Frequently asked questions on Global Task Force on digital health for TB and its work. World Health Organization. [2020-11-03]. http://www.who.int/tb/areas-of-work/digital-health/faq/en/
    1. Bradway M, Carrion C, Vallespin B, Saadatfard O, Puigdomènech E, Espallargues M, Kotzeva A. mHealth Assessment: Conceptualization of a Global Framework. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 May 02;5(5):e60. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.7291. https://mhealth.jmir.org/2017/5/e60/ - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Smith B, Sverdlov A. Digital Technology: The Future Is Bright. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Jul;104(1):9–11. doi: 10.1002/cpt.1092. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Alami H, Gagnon M, Fortin J. Digital health and the challenge of health systems transformation. Mhealth. 2017;3:31. doi: 10.21037/mhealth.2017.07.02. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Health News Articles. US News & World Report Health. [2020-11-03]. https://health.usnews.com/