Evidence mapPaperPMID 35060909Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2022

Digital Health Interventions to Enhance Prevention in Primary Care: Scoping Review.

Van C Willis, Kelly Jean Thomas Craig, Yalda Jabbarpour, Elisabeth L Scheufele, Yull E Arriaga, Monica Ajinkya, Kyu B Rhee, Andrew Bazemore

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
19.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Economic Evaluation of Pharmacist-Led Digital Health Interventions: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Precision public-health intervention for care coordination: a real-world study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Healthcare delivery in the arctic-telehealth prospects.International journal of circumpolar health · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Van C Willis *Center for Artificial Intelligence, Research, and Evaluation, IBM Watson Health, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5577-0545
Kelly Jean Thomas Craig *Center for Artificial Intelligence, Research, and Evaluation, IBM Watson Health, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9954-2795
Yalda JabbarpourPolicy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care, The Robert Graham Center, American Academy of Family Physicians, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3147-7437
Elisabeth L ScheufeleCenter for Artificial Intelligence, Research, and Evaluation, IBM Watson Health, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7553-0098
Yull E ArriagaCenter for Artificial Intelligence, Research, and Evaluation, IBM Watson Health, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7229-2028
Monica AjinkyaPolicy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care, The Robert Graham Center, American Academy of Family Physicians, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2804-0576
Kyu B RheeCenter for Artificial Intelligence, Research, and Evaluation, IBM Watson Health, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1545-2232
Andrew BazemoreThe American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6028-2279
American Academy of Family Physicians · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDisease prevention is a central aspect of primary care practice and is comprised of primary (eg, vaccinations), secondary (eg, screenings), tertiary (eg, chronic condition monitoring), and quaternary (eg, prevention of overmedicalization) levels. Despite rapid digital transformation of primary care practices, digital health interventions (DHIs) in preventive care have yet to be systematically evaluated.

objectiveThis review aimed to identify and describe the scope and use of current DHIs for preventive care in primary care settings.

methodsA scoping review to identify literature published from 2014 to 2020 was conducted across multiple databases using keywords and Medical Subject Headings terms covering primary care professionals, prevention and care management, and digital health. A subgroup analysis identified relevant studies conducted in US primary care settings, excluding DHIs that use the electronic health record (EHR) as a retrospective data capture tool. Technology descriptions, outcomes (eg, health care performance and implementation science), and study quality as per Oxford levels of evidence were abstracted.

resultsThe search yielded 5274 citations, of which 1060 full-text articles were identified. Following a subgroup analysis, 241 articles met the inclusion criteria. Studies primarily examined DHIs among health information technologies, including EHRs (166/241, 68.9%), clinical decision support (88/241, 36.5%), telehealth (88/241, 36.5%), and multiple technologies (154/241, 63.9%). DHIs were predominantly used for tertiary prevention (131/241, 54.4%). Of the core primary care functions, comprehensiveness was addressed most frequently (213/241, 88.4%). DHI users were providers (205/241, 85.1%), patients (111/241, 46.1%), or multiple types (89/241, 36.9%). Reported outcomes were primarily clinical (179/241, 70.1%), and statistically significant improvements were common (192/241, 79.7%). Results were summarized across the following 5 topics for the most novel/distinct DHIs: population-centered, patient-centered, care access expansion, panel-centered (dashboarding), and application-driven DHIs. The quality of the included studies was moderate to low.

conclusionsPreventive DHIs in primary care settings demonstrated meaningful improvements in both clinical and nonclinical outcomes, and across user types; however, adoption and implementation in the US were limited primarily to EHR platforms, and users were mainly clinicians receiving alerts regarding care management for their patients. Evaluations of negative results, effects on health disparities, and many other gaps remain to be explored.

Indexed as

clinical decision support systemsdigital technologypreventive medicineprimary health caretelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID35060909
PMCPMC8817213
OpenAlexW4200272124

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.