Identifying optimal frameworks to implement or evaluate digital health interventions: a scoping review protocol

Charlene Soobiah, Madeline Cooper, Vanessa Kishimoto, R Sacha Bhatia, Ted Scott, Shelagh Maloney, Darren Larsen, Harindra C Wijeysundera, Jennifer Zelmer, Carolyn Steele Gray, Laura Desveaux, Charlene Soobiah, Madeline Cooper, Vanessa Kishimoto, R Sacha Bhatia, Ted Scott, Shelagh Maloney, Darren Larsen, Harindra C Wijeysundera, Jennifer Zelmer, Carolyn Steele Gray, Laura Desveaux

Abstract

Introduction: Digital health interventions (DHIs) are defined as health services delivered electronically through formal or informal care. DHIs can range from electronic medical records used by providers to mobile health apps used by consumers. DHIs involve complex interactions between user, technology and the healthcare team, posing challenges for implementation and evaluation. Theoretical or interpretive frameworks are crucial in providing researchers guidance and clarity on implementation or evaluation approaches; however, there is a lack of standardisation on which frameworks to use in which contexts. Our goal is to conduct a scoping review to identify frameworks to guide the implementation or evaluation of DHIs.

Methods and analysis: A scoping review will be conducted using methods outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers' manual and will conform to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Studies will be included if they report on frameworks (ie, theoretical, interpretive, developmental) that are used to guide either implementation or evaluation of DHIs. Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsychINFO will be searched in addition to grey literature and reference lists of included studies. Citations and full text articles will be screened independently in Covidence after a reliability check among reviewers. We will use qualitative description to summarise findings and focus on how research objectives and type of DHIs are aligned with the frameworks used.

Ethics and dissemination: We engaged an advisory panel of digital health knowledge users to provide input at strategic stages of the scoping review to enhance the relevance of findings and inform dissemination activities. Specifically, they will provide feedback on the eligibility criteria, data abstraction elements, interpretation of findings and assist in developing key messages for dissemination. This study does not require ethical review. Findings from review will support decision making when selecting appropriate frameworks to guide the implementation or evaluation of DHIs.

Keywords: protocols & guidelines; quality in health care; statistics & research methods.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

References

    1. Tabak RG, Khoong EC, Chambers DA, et al. . Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med 2012;43:337–50. 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.024
    1. Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID. Knowledge translation in health care: moving from evidence to practice, 2014.
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, et al. . Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new medical Research Council guidance. Int J Nurs Stud 2013;50:587–92. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.09.010
    1. Strifler L, Cardoso R, McGowan J, et al. . Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks with limited use. J Clin Epidemiol 2018;100:92–102. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.04.008
    1. Murray E, Hekler EB, Andersson G, et al. . Evaluating digital health interventions: key questions and approaches. Am J Prev Med 2016;51:843–51. 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.06.008
    1. Shaw J, Agarwal P, Desveaux L, et al. . Beyond "implementation": digital health innovation and service design. NPJ Digit Med 2018;1:48. 10.1038/s41746-018-0059-8
    1. Aromataris EMZ. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewer's manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2017.
    1. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005;8:19–32. 10.1080/1364557032000119616
    1. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. . PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:467–73. 10.7326/M18-0850
    1. Foster, MSLS ED, Deardorff, MLIS A. Open science framework (OSF). Jmla 2017;105 10.5195/JMLA.2017.88
    1. World Health organization Constitution of the world Health organization. in: World Health organization: basic documents. 45th ED, 2005. Available: [Accessed 8 Jun 2020].
    1. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, et al. . PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;75:40–6. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021
    1. Booth A, Carroll C. Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? is it desirable? Health Info Libr J 2015;32:220–35. 10.1111/hir.12108
    1. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Grey matters: a practical search tool for evidence-based medicine, 2013. Available:
    1. Covidence, 2019. Available:
    1. Sandelowski M. What's in a name? qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health 2010;33:77–84. 10.1002/nur.20362
    1. Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, et al. . What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ 2008;336:1472–4. 10.1136/bmj.39590.732037.47
    1. Hoffmann TC, Erueti C, Glasziou PP. Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials. BMJ 2013;347:f3755. 10.1136/bmj.f3755
    1. Breuer E, Lee L, De Silva M, et al. . Using theory of change to design and evaluate public health interventions: a systematic review. Implement Sci 2016;11:63. 10.1186/s13012-016-0422-6

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit