Evidence mapPaperPMID 38315545Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2024

Timing, Indicators, and Approaches to Digital Patient Experience Evaluation: Umbrella Systematic Review.

Tingting Wang, Guido Giunti, Richard Goossens, Marijke Melles

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Digital health interventions for informal cancer caregivers' mental health management: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Tingting WangDepartment of Human-Centered Design, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1031-6346
Guido GiuntiResearch Unit of Health Sciences and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-0836-9825
Richard GoossensDepartment of Human-Centered Design, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8304-3916
Marijke MellesDepartment of Human-Centered Design, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6342-6493

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increasing prevalence of DH applications has outpaced research and practice in digital health (DH) evaluations. Patient experience (PEx) was reported as one of the challenges facing the health system by the World Health Organization. To generate evidence on DH and promote the appropriate integration and use of technologies, a standard evaluation of PEx in DH is required.

objectiveThis study aims to systematically identify evaluation timing considerations (ie, when to measure), evaluation indicators (ie, what to measure), and evaluation approaches (ie, how to measure) with regard to digital PEx. The overall aim of this study is to generate an evaluation guide for further improving digital PEx evaluation.

methodsThis is a 2-phase study parallel to our previous study. In phase 1, literature reviews related to PEx in DH were systematically searched from Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. Two independent raters conducted 2 rounds of paper screening, including title and abstract screening and full-text screening, and assessed the interrater reliability for 20% (round 1: 23/115 and round 2: 12/58) random samples using the Fleiss-Cohen coefficient (round 1: k1=0.88 and round 2: k2=0.80). When reaching interrater reliability (k>0.60), TW conducted the rest of the screening process, leaving any uncertainties for group discussions. Overall, 38% (45/119) of the articles were considered eligible for further thematic analysis. In phase 2, to check if there were any meaningful novel insights that would change our conclusions, we performed an updated literature search in which we collected 294 newly published reviews, of which 102 (34.7%) were identified as eligible articles. We considered them to have no important changes to our original results on the research objectives. Therefore, they were not integrated into the synthesis of this review and were used as supplementary materials.

resultsOur review highlights 5 typical evaluation objectives that serve 5 stakeholder groups separately. We identified a set of key evaluation timing considerations and classified them into 3 categories: intervention maturity stages, timing of the evaluation, and timing of data collection. Information on evaluation indicators of digital PEx was identified and summarized into 3 categories (intervention outputs, patient outcomes, and health care system impact), 9 themes, and 22 subthemes. A set of evaluation theories, common study designs, data collection methods and instruments, and data analysis approaches was captured, which can be used or adapted to evaluate digital PEx.

conclusionsOur findings enabled us to generate an evaluation guide to help DH intervention researchers, designers, developers, and program evaluators evaluate digital PEx. Finally, we propose 6 directions for encouraging further digital PEx evaluation research and practice to address the challenge of poor PEx.

Indexed as

Digital HealthPatient SatisfactionHumansTelemedicineTime Factorsdigital healtheHealthevaluation approachesevaluation indicatorsevaluation timinghuman-computer interactionmHealthmobile healthmobile phonepatient-centered carepatient experiencetelemedicineuser-centered designuser experience

Identifiers

PMID38315545
PMCPMC10877490

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.