ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Identification and Categorization of the Distinct Purposes Underpinning the Use of Digital Health Care Self-Monitoring: Qualitative Study of Stakeholders in the Health Care Ecosystem.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital health care self-monitoring has gained prominence as a tool to address various challenges in health care, including patient autonomy, data-informed decision-making, and organizational improvements. However, integrating self-monitoring solutions across a diverse ecosystem of stakeholders-patients, health care providers, policy makers, and industry-can be complicated by differing priorities and needs.
objectiveThis study aimed to identify and categorize the distinct purposes underpinning the use of digital health care self-monitoring. By mapping these purposes, the research seeks to clarify how technology design and implementation can be better aligned with stakeholder expectations, thereby enhancing adoption and impact.
methodsA qualitative design was used, drawing on 31 in-depth, semistructured interviews conducted with stakeholders in the Swedish health care ecosystem. Participants included patients, advocacy groups, health care professionals, policy makers, pharmaceutical representatives, and technology developers. Data were analyzed thematically using an inductive coding approach supported by NVivo 12 (Lumivero). Emerging themes were refined through iterative discussion among the research team and validated by presentation to health care practitioners.
resultsA total of 8 distinct purposes of digital health care self-monitoring emerged: (1) emancipate (enhance patient autonomy), (2) learn (understand health behaviors), (3) improve (enhance patient health), (4) engage (bolster patient involvement), (5) control (manage adherence and symptoms), (6) evaluate (assess health parameters), (7) innovate (advance interventions and processes), and (8) generate (drive new initiatives). These purposes form three categories of value creation: (1) improving the patient-provider link, (2) leveraging big data analytics for knowledge creation, and (3) using digital infrastructure to develop new care processes.
conclusionsOur findings demonstrate that digital health care self-monitoring serves multifaceted aims, ranging from individual patient empowerment to ecosystem-wide innovation. Designing and implementing these tools with an explicit understanding of all stakeholders' "why" can help address potential conflicts (eg, balancing patient autonomy with clinical control) and facilitate more holistic adoption. Ultimately, this study underscores the importance of clear, purpose-driven approaches to promote better health outcomes, knowledge generation, and care process improvements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.