A sociotechnical framework to assess patient-facing eHealth tools. results of a modified Delphi process

dc.contributor.authorJacob, Christine
dc.contributor.authorLindeque, Johan Paul
dc.contributor.authorMüller, Roman
dc.contributor.authorKlein, Alexander
dc.contributor.authorMetcalfe, Thomas
dc.contributor.authorConnolly, Samantha L.
dc.contributor.authorKoerber, Florian
dc.contributor.authorMaguire, Roma
dc.contributor.authorDenis, Fabrice
dc.contributor.authorHeuss, Sabina
dc.contributor.authorPeter, Marc K.
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-25T08:44:45Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.description.abstractAmong the thousands of eHealth tools available, the vast majority do not get past pilot phases because they cannot prove value, and only a few have been systematically assessed. Although multiple eHealth assessment frameworks have been developed, these efforts face multiple challenges. This study aimed to address some of these challenges by validating and refining an initial list of 55 assessment criteria based on previous frameworks through a two-round modified Delphi process with in-between rounds of interviews. The expert panel (n = 57) included participants from 18 countries and 9 concerned parties. A consensus was reached on 46 criteria that were classified into foundational and contextual criteria. The 36 foundational criteria focus on evaluating the eHealth tool itself and were grouped into nine clusters: technical aspects, clinical utility and safety, usability and human centricity, functionality, content, data management, endorsement, maintenance, and developer. The 10 contextual criteria focus on evaluating the factors that vary depending on the context the tool is being evaluated for and were grouped into seven clusters: data-protection compliance, safety regulatory compliance, interoperability and data integration, cultural requirements, affordability, cost-benefit, and implementability. The classification of criteria into foundational and contextual helps us assess not only the quality of an isolated tool, but also its potential fit in a specific setting. Criteria subscales may be particularly relevant when determining the strengths and weaknesses of the tool being evaluated. This granularity enables different concerned parties to make informed decisions about which tools to consider according to their specific needs and priorities.
dc.identifier.doi10.1038/s41746-023-00982-w
dc.identifier.issn2398-6352
dc.identifier.urihttps://irf.fhnw.ch/handle/11654/48175
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.26041/fhnw-10890
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherNature
dc.relation.ispartofnpj Digital Medicine
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.spatialLondon
dc.subject.ddc610 - Medizin und Gesundheit
dc.titleA sociotechnical framework to assess patient-facing eHealth tools. results of a modified Delphi process
dc.type01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift
dc.volume6
dspace.entity.typePublication
fhnw.InventedHereYes
fhnw.ReviewTypeAnonymous ex ante peer review of a complete publication
fhnw.affiliation.hochschuleHochschule für Wirtschaft FHNWde_CH
fhnw.affiliation.institutInstitut für Unternehmensführungde_CH
fhnw.openAccessCategoryClosed
fhnw.publicationStatePublished
relation.isAuthorOfPublication7e52956a-1223-4665-8fdc-7bacad074ba4
relation.isAuthorOfPublication16a3f651-a6d1-4d4a-ae98-8953dbdc575b
relation.isAuthorOfPublicatione0ea00b7-5770-4015-b1d8-ae09fc9af754
relation.isAuthorOfPublication3067cc9f-139a-40aa-a6d0-107ea5c9d3f7
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationb981bc1a-202a-48cf-8bd0-fe553b521246
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery7e52956a-1223-4665-8fdc-7bacad074ba4
Dateien

Originalbündel

Gerade angezeigt 1 - 1 von 1
Vorschaubild
Name:
s41746-023-00982-w.pdf
Größe:
4.02 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

Lizenzbündel

Gerade angezeigt 1 - 1 von 1
Kein Vorschaubild vorhanden
Name:
license.txt
Größe:
2.66 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Beschreibung: