Dataset Information

A scoping review of causal methods enabling predictions under hypothetical interventions.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The methods with which prediction models are usually developed mean that neither the parameters nor the predictions should be interpreted causally. For many applications, this is perfectly acceptable. However, when prediction models are used to support decision making, there is often a need for predicting outcomes under hypothetical interventions.

Aims

We aimed to identify published methods for developing and validating prediction models that enable risk estimation of outcomes under hypothetical interventions, utilizing causal inference. We aimed to identify the main methodological approaches, their underlying assumptions, targeted estimands, and potential pitfalls and challenges with using the method. Finally, we aimed to highlight unresolved methodological challenges.

Methods

We systematically reviewed literature published by December 2019, considering papers in the health domain that used causal considerations to enable prediction models to be used for predictions under hypothetical interventions. We included both methodologies proposed in statistical/machine learning literature and methodologies used in applied studies.

Results

We identified 4919 papers through database searches and a further 115 papers through manual searches. Of these, 87 papers were retained for full-text screening, of which 13 were selected for inclusion. We found papers from both the statistical and the machine learning literature. Most of the identified methods for causal inference from observational data were based on marginal structural models and g-estimation.

Conclusions

There exist two broad methodological approaches for allowing prediction under hypothetical intervention into clinical prediction models: (1) enriching prediction models derived from observational studies with estimated causal effects from clinical trials and meta-analyses and (2) estimating prediction models and causal effects directly from observational data. These methods require extending to dynamic treatment regimes, and consideration of multiple interventions to operationalise a clinical decision support system. Techniques for validating 'causal prediction models' are still in their infancy.

SUBMITTER: Lin L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7860039 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite the prevalence of mobile health (mHealth) technologies and observations of their impacts on patients' health, there is still no consensus on how best to evaluate these tools for patient self-management of chronic conditions. Researchers currently do not have guidelines on which qualitative or quantitative factors to measure or how to gather these reliable data. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to document the methods and both qualitative and quantitative measures used to assess mHealth apps and systems intended for use by patients for the self-management of chronic noncommunicable diseases. METHODS:A scoping review was performed, and PubMed, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and ProQuest Research Library were searched for literature published in English between January 1, 2015, and January 18, 2019. Search terms included combinations of the description of the intention of the intervention (eg, self-efficacy and self-management) and description of the intervention platform (eg, mobile app and sensor). Article selection was based on whether the intervention described a patient with a chronic noncommunicable disease as the primary user of a tool or system that would always be available for self-management. The extracted data included study design, health conditions, participants, intervention type (app or system), methods used, and measured qualitative and quantitative data. RESULTS:A total of 31 studies met the eligibility criteria. Studies were classified as either those that evaluated mHealth apps (ie, single devices; n=15) or mHealth systems (ie, more than one tool; n=17), and one study evaluated both apps and systems. App interventions mainly targeted mental health conditions (including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), followed by diabetes and cardiovascular and heart diseases; among the 17 studies that described mHealth systems, most involved patients diagnosed with cardiovascular and heart disease, followed by diabetes, respiratory disease, mental health conditions, cancer, and multiple illnesses. The most common evaluation method was collection of usage logs (n=21), followed by standardized questionnaires (n=18) and ad-hoc questionnaires (n=13). The most common measure was app interaction (n=19), followed by usability/feasibility (n=17) and patient-reported health data via the app (n=15). CONCLUSIONS:This review demonstrates that health intervention studies are taking advantage of the additional resources that mHealth technologies provide. As mHealth technologies become more prevalent, the call for evidence includes the impacts on patients' self-efficacy and engagement, in addition to traditional measures. However, considering the unstructured data forms, diverse use, and various platforms of mHealth, it can be challenging to select the right methods and measures to evaluate mHealth technologies. The inclusion of app usage logs, patient-involved methods, and other approaches to determine the impact of mHealth is an important step forward in health intervention research. We hope that this overview will become a catalogue of the possible ways in which mHealth has been and can be integrated into research practice.

Project description:Addressing health workforce cultural competence is a common approach to improving health service quality for culturally and ethnically diverse groups. Research evidence in this area is primarily focused on cultural competency training and its effects on practitioners' knowledge, attitudes, skills and behaviour. While improvements in measures of healthcare practitioner cultural competency and other healthcare outcomes have been reported, there are concerns around evidence strength and quality. This scoping review reports on the intervention strategies, outcomes, and measures of included studies with the purpose of informing the implementation and evaluation of future interventions to improve health workforce cultural competence.This systematic scoping review was completed as part of a larger systematic literature search conducted on cultural competence intervention evaluations in health care in Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand published from 2006 to 2015. Overall, 64 studies on cultural competency interventions were found, with 16 aimed directly at the health workforce.There was significant heterogeneity in workforce intervention strategies, measures and outcomes reported across studies making comparisons of intervention effects difficult. The two main workforce intervention strategies identified were cultural competency training and other professional development interventions including other training and mentoring. Positive outcomes were commonly reported for improved practitioner knowledge (9/16), skills (7/16), and attitudes/beliefs (5/16). Although health care (6/16) and health (2/16) outcomes were reported in some studies there was very limited evidence of positive intervention impacts. Only four studies utilised existing validated measurement tools to assess intervention outcomes.Training and development of the health workforce remain a principle strategy towards the goal of improved cultural competence in health services and systems. Diverse approaches are available to increase health workforce cultural competence. However, the effects of interventions beyond practitioner knowledge and attitudes remains unclear. Assessment of practitioner behavioural outcomes as well as measures of intervention impact on healthcare and health outcomes are needed to build a stronger evidence base.

Project description:IntroductionIn healthcare policy and economic literature, research on the health technology assessment (HTA) of complex interventions (CIs) is becoming increasingly important. In many developed countries, HTA guides decision-making to help achieve greater value for money when funding health care. However, research has yet to identify the forms of evidence and evaluation criteria that should be used in the HTA of CIs. Previous research has established that the HTA of CIs requires multiple factors to be evaluated but there is no agreement on which factors ought always to be considered. There is equally little agreement on which forms of evidence ought to be collected or synthesised and how. We plan to perform a systematic scoping review in order to identify the range of evaluation criteria and types of evidence currently used in the HTA of CIs.Method and analysisThis protocol was developed to guide the methodological framework for the conduct of a scoping review on health technology assessment (HTA) of complex interventions (CIs), using the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and the six-stage framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley, in addition to more recent innovations in scoping review methodology. A grey literature search will supplement the primary searches of seven electronic databases for studies available in English between January 2000 and August 2020. Two reviewers will independently screen all search results for inclusion and data will be extracted using a customised data extraction or charting form. Any dispute will be resolved by consensus or through arbitration by a third author. The mnemonic Population, Concept and Context will be adopted to establish criteria for selecting relevant literature, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Extension for Scoping Review will be used for reporting the results. Several explanatory-descriptive methods will be used for analysing the extracted data including frequency and trend analyses as well as reflexive thematic coding and analysis.Mapping evidence on the HTA of CIs will allow us to gain a better understanding of both established and emerging practices, including the information types, requirements, values and parameters that are incorporated in the HTA of CIs. We also expect the findings of the scoping review to help identify research gaps that will guide future studies. As healthcare becomes more complex in its delivery, it is timely to determine how these complex interventions should be assessed so that policy decisions can be made about whether implementation and public funding is warranted.Ethics and disseminationThis scoping review will involve secondary analysis of already collected data, and thus, does not require ethics approval. The research findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication and will also be disseminated at conferences and seminars.

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, public health care is under increasing pressure, an economic burden currently amplified by the COVID-19 outbreak. With the recognition that universal health coverage improves the health of a population and reduces health inequalities, universal health coverage has been acknowledged as a priority goal. To meet the global needs in a population with increased chronic illness and longer life expectancy, the health care system is in dire need of new, emerging technologies. eHealth solutions as a method of delivery may have an impact on quality of care and health care costs. As such, it is important to study methods previously used to avoid suboptimal implementation and promote general guidelines to further develop eHealth solutions.ObjectiveThis study aims to explore and thematically categorize a selected representation of early phase studies on eHealth technologies, focusing on papers that are under development or undergoing testing. Further, we want to assess enablers and barriers in terms of usability, scaling, and data management of eHealth implementation. The aim of this study to explore early development phase and feasibility studies was an intentional effort to provide applicable guidelines for evaluation at different stages of implementation.MethodsA structured search was performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane to identify and provide insight in current eHealth technology and methodology under development and gain insight in the future potential of eHealth technologies.ResultsIn total, 27 articles were included in this review. The clinical studies were categorized thematically by illness comparing 4 technology types deemed relevant: apps/web-based technology, sensor technology, virtual reality, and television. All eHealth assessment and implementation studies were categorized by their focus point: usability, scaling, or data management. Studies assessing the effect of eHealth were divided into feasibility studies, qualitative studies, and heuristic assessments. Studies focusing on usability (16/27) mainly addressed user involvement and learning curve in the adoption of eHealth, while the majority of scaling studies (6/27) focused on strategic and organizational aspects of upscaling eHealth solutions. Studies focusing on data management (5/27) addressed data processing and data sensitivity in adoption and diffusion of eHealth. Efficient processing of data in a secure manner, as well as user involvement and feedback, both throughout small studies and during upscaling, were the important enablers considered for successful implementation of eHealth.ConclusionseHealth interventions have considerable potential to improve lifestyle changes and adherence to treatment recommendations. To promote efficient implementation and scaling, user involvement to promote user-friendliness, secure and adaptable data management, and strategical considerations needs to be addressed early in the development process. eHealth should be assessed during its development into health services. The wide variation in interventions and methodology makes comparison of the results challenging and calls for standardization of methods.

Project description:BackgroundAn increasing number of patients expect and want to play a greater role in their treatment and care decisions. This emphasizes the need to adopt collaborative health care practices, which implies collaboration among interprofessional health care teams and patients, their families, caregivers, and communities. In recent years, digital health technologies that support self-care and collaboration between the community and health care providers (ie, participatory health technologies) have received increasing attention. However, knowledge regarding the features of such technologies that support effective patient-professional partnerships is still limited.ObjectiveThis study aimed to map and assess published studies on participatory health technologies intended to support partnerships among patients, caregivers, and health care professionals in chronic care, focusing specifically on identifying the main features of these technologies.MethodsA scoping review covering scientific publications in English between January 2008 and December 2020 was performed. We searched PubMed and Web of Science databases. Peer-reviewed qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies that evaluated digital health technologies for patient-professional partnerships in chronic care settings were included. The data were charted and analyzed thematically. The PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist was used.ResultsThis review included 32 studies, reported in 34 papers. The topic of participatory health technologies experienced a slightly increasing trend across publication years, with most papers originating from the United States and Norway. Diabetes and cardiovascular diseases were the most common conditions addressed. Of the 32 studies, 12 (38%) evaluated the influence of participatory health technologies on partnerships, mostly with positive outcomes, although we also identified how partnership relationships and the nature of collaborative work could be challenged when the roles and expectations between users were unclear. Six common features of participatory health technologies were identified: patient-professional communication, self-monitoring, tailored self-care support, self-care education, care planning, and community forums for peer-to-peer interactions.ConclusionsOur findings emphasize the importance of clarifying mutual expectations and carefully considering the implications that the introduction of participatory health technologies may have on the work of patients and health care professionals, both individually and in collaboration. A knowledge gap remains regarding the use of participatory health technologies to effectively support patient-professional partnerships in chronic care management.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Dyadic psychosocial interventions have been found beneficial both for people coping with mental or physical health conditions as well as their family members and friends who provide them with support. Delivering these interventions via electronic health (eHealth) may help increase their scalability. OBJECTIVE:This scoping review aimed to provide the first comprehensive overview of dyadic eHealth interventions for individuals of all ages affected by mental or physical illness and their family members or friends who support them. The goal was to understand how dyadic eHealth interventions have been used and to highlight areas of research needed to advance dyadic eHealth intervention development and dissemination. METHODS:A comprehensive electronic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO was conducted for articles published in the English language through March 2019. Eligible records described a psychosocial eHealth intervention that intervened with both care recipients and their support person. RESULTS:A total of 7113 records were reviewed of which 101 met eligibility criteria. There were 52 unique dyadic eHealth interventions identified, which were tested across 73 different trials. Of the unique interventions, 33 were conducted among dyads of children and their supporting parent, 1 was conducted with an adolescent-young adult care recipient population, and the remaining 18 were conducted among adult dyads. Interventions targeting pediatric dyads most commonly addressed a mental health condition (n=10); interventions targeting adult dyads most commonly addressed cancer (n=9). More than three-fourths of interventions (n=40) required some human support from research staff or clinicians. Most studies (n=64) specified one or more primary outcomes for care recipients, whereas less than one-fourth (n=22) specified primary outcomes for support persons. Where specified, primary outcomes were most commonly self-reported psychosocial or health factors for both care recipients (n=43) and support persons (n=18). Results of the dyadic eHealth intervention tended to be positive for care recipients, but evidence of effects for support persons was limited because of few studies specifying primary outcomes for supporters. Trials of dyadic eHealth interventions were most commonly randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n=44), and RCTs most commonly compared the dyadic eHealth intervention to usual care alone (n=22). CONCLUSIONS:This first comprehensive review of dyadic eHealth interventions demonstrates that there is substantial, diverse, and growing literature supporting this interventional approach. However, several significant gaps were identified. Few studies were designed to evaluate the unique effects of dyadic interventions relative to individual interventions. There was also limited assessment and reporting of outcomes for support persons, and there were no interventions meeting our eligibility criteria specifically targeting the needs of older adult dyads. Findings highlight areas of research opportunities for developing dyadic eHealth interventions for novel populations and for increasing access to dyadic care.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-harm is a growing issue with increasing prevalence rates; however, individuals who self-harm do not often receive treatment. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions are a possible solution to some of the barriers that individuals face when seeking support, and they have also been found to be effective in improving mental health. Thus far, reviews of mHealth interventions for self-harm have been limited by study type. Therefore, we determined that a broader scoping review will provide a more exhaustive understanding of mHealth interventions for self-harm.ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to identify mHealth interventions for self-harm within the literature, understand the types and features of interventions that have been developed and evaluated, highlight research findings around mHealth interventions for self-harm, and determine what outcomes are typically used to assess the efficacy of interventions.MethodsA search was conducted using Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, PsycEXTRA, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Studies were included if they described an mHealth intervention designed to have a direct (ie, if the intervention was designed for self-harm or for people who self-harm) or indirect (ie, if self-harm was measured as an outcome) treatment effect and if the paper was available in English. There were no exclusion criteria based on the study design.ResultsA total of 36 papers were included in the review, and most of them were randomized controlled trials published within the last 4 years. The interventions were mostly smartphone apps and calling or texting services, with 62% (21/34) having underlying therapeutic models to inform the intervention content. They were generally shown to be promising and appealing, but only 5 were widely available for use. Outcomes focused on a reduction of self-harm and suicidality, mood, and the users' experiences of the intervention. Samples were typically nondiverse, and there was limited variety in the study designs and in the measurements of self-harm recovery.ConclusionsPromising and appealing mHealth interventions have been developed but are not widely available. Research could benefit from greater diversity as well as a broader and more nuanced understanding of recovery from self-harm.