Dataset Information

Understanding digital health ecosystem from Australian citizens’ perspective: A scoping review

ABSTRACT:

Background

Digital health (DH) and the benefits of related services are fairly well understood. However, it still is critical to map the digital health care landscape including the key elements that define it as an ecosystem. Particularly, knowing the perspectives of citizens on this digital transformation is an important angle to capture. In this review we aim to analyze the relevant studies to identify how DH is understood and experienced by Australian citizens and what they may require from DH platforms.

Materials and methods

A scoping literature review was conducted across several electronic databases (ACM Digital Library, OVID, PubMed, Scopus, IEEE, Science Direct, SAGE), as well as grey literature. Additionally, citation mining was conducted to identify further relevant studies. Identified studies were subjected to eligibility criteria and the final set of articles was independently reviewed, analyzed, discussed and interpreted by three reviewers.

Results

Of 3811 articles, 98 articles met the inclusion criteria with research-based articles–as opposed to review articles or white papers– comprising the largest proportion (72%) of the selected literature. The qualitative analysis of the literature revealed five key elements that capture the essence of the digital health ecosystem interventions from the viewpoint of the Australian citizens. The identified elements were “consumer/user”, “health care”, “technology”, “use and usability”, “data and information”. These elements were further found to be associated with 127 subcategories.

Conclusions

This study is the first of its kind to analyze and synthesize the relevant literature on DH ecosystems from the citizens’ perspective. Through the lens of two research questions, this study defines the key components that were found crucial to understanding citizens’ experiences with DH. This understanding lays a strong foundation for designing and fostering DH ecosystem. The results provide a solid ground for empirical testing.

SUBMITTER: Oshni Alvandi A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8592460 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe development of digital health services reflects not only the technical development of services but also a change in attitude and the way of thinking. It has become a cornerstone for engaging and activating patients and citizens in health management while living at home. Digital health services are also aimed at enhancing the efficiency and quality of services, while simultaneously providing services more cost-effectively. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated worldwide the development and use of digital services in response to requirements for social distancing and other regulations.ObjectiveThe aim of this review is to identify and summarize how digital health services are being used among patients and citizens while living at home.MethodsThe Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews was used as guidance. A search conducted in 3 databases (CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus) resulted in 419 papers. The reporting was conducted by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR), and the analysis of the included papers was performed using a framework consisting of 5 clusters describing the use of digital health services. After screening and excluding papers that did not match the inclusion criteria, 88 (21%) papers from 2010 to 2022 were included in the final analysis.ResultsResults indicated that digital health services are used in different situations and among different kinds of populations. In most studies, digital health services were used in the form of video visits or consultations. The telephone was also used regularly for consultations. Other services, such as remote monitoring and transmitting of recorded information and the use the of internet or portals for searching information, were observed as well. Alerts, emergency systems, and reminders were observed to offer possibilities of use, for example, among older people. The digital health services also showed to have potential for use in patient education.ConclusionsThe development of digital services reflects a shift toward the provision of care regardless of time and place. It also reflects a shift toward emphasis on patient-centered care, meaning activating and engaging patients in their own care as they use digital services for various health-related purposes. Despite the development of digital services, many challenges (eg, adequate infrastructure) still prevail worldwide.

Project description:BackgroundDigital interventions offer a solution to address the high demand for mental health promotion, especially when facing physical contact restrictions or lacking accessibility. Engagement with digital interventions is critical for their effectiveness; however, retaining users' engagement throughout the intervention is challenging. It remains unclear what strategies facilitate engagement with digital interventions that target mental health promotion.ObjectiveOur aim is to conduct a scoping review to investigate user engagement strategies and methods to evaluate engagement with digital interventions that target mental health promotion in adults.MethodsThis scoping review adheres to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for scoping reviews. The search was conducted in 7 electronic databases from inception to April 2020. The inclusion criteria for studies were as follows: adult (aged ≥18 years) users of digital interventions for mental health promotion from the general population; any digital intervention for mental health promotion; and user engagement strategies described in the intervention design. We extracted the following data items: study characteristics, digital intervention (type and engagement strategy), evaluation of engagement strategy (method and result specifying whether the strategy was effective at facilitating engagement), and features of engagement (extent of use and subjective experience of users).ResultsA total of 2766 studies were identified, of which 16 (0.58%) met the inclusion criteria. The 16 studies included randomized controlled trials (6/16, 37%), studies analyzing process data (5/16, 31%), observational studies (3/16, 19%), and qualitative studies (2/16, 13%). The digital interventions for mental health promotion were either web based (12/16, 75%) or mobile app based (4/16, 25%). The engagement strategies included personalized feedback about intervention content or users' mental health status; guidance regarding content and progress through e-coaching; social forums, and interactivity with peers; content gamification; reminders; and flexibility and ease of use. These engagement strategies were deemed effective based on qualitative user feedback or responses on questionnaires or tools (4/16, 25%), usability data (5/16, 31%), or both (7/16, 44%). Most studies identified personalized support in the form of e-coaching, peer support through a social platform, personalized feedback, or joint videoconference sessions as an engaging feature.ConclusionsPersonalized support during the intervention, access to social support, and personalized feedback seem to promote engagement with digital interventions for mental health promotion. These findings need to be interpreted with caution because the included studies were heterogeneous, had small sample sizes, and typically did not address engagement as the primary outcome. Despite the importance of user engagement for the effectiveness of digital interventions, this field has not yet received much attention. Further research is needed on the effectiveness of different strategies required to facilitate user engagement in digital interventions for mental health promotion.

Project description:BackgroundA total of 75% of people with mental health disorders have an onset of illness between the ages of 12 and 24 years. Many in this age group report substantial obstacles to receiving quality youth-centered mental health care services. With the rapid development of technology and the recent COVID-19 pandemic, mobile health (mHealth) has presented new opportunities for youth mental health research, practice, and policy.ObjectiveThe research objectives were to (1) synthesize the current evidence supporting mHealth interventions for youths who experience mental health challenges and (2) identify current gaps in the mHealth field related to youth's access to mental health services and health outcomes.MethodsGuided by the methods of Arksey and O'Malley, we conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed studies that used mHealth tools to improve youth mental health (January 2016-February 2022). We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase databases using the following key terms: (1) mHealth; (2) youth and young adults; and (3) mental health. The current gaps were analyzed using content analysis.ResultsThe search produced 4270 records, of which 151 met inclusion criteria. Included articles highlight the comprehensive aspects of youth mHealth intervention resource allocation for targeted conditions, mHealth delivery methods, measurement tools, evaluation of mHealth intervention, and youth engagement. The median age for participants in all studies is 17 (IQR 14-21) years. Only 3 (2%) studies involved participants who reported their sex or gender outside of the binary option. Many studies (68/151, 45%) were published after the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak. Study types and designs varied, with 60 (40%) identified as randomized controlled trials. Notably, 143 out of 151 (95%) studies came from developed countries, suggesting an evidence shortfall on the feasibility of implementing mHealth services in lower-resourced settings. Additionally, the results highlight concerns related to inadequate resources devoted to self-harm and substance uses, weak study design, expert engagement, and the variety of outcome measures selected to capture impact or changes over time. There is also a lack of standardized regulations and guidelines for researching mHealth technologies for youths and the use of non-youth-centered approaches to implementing results.ConclusionsThis study may be used to inform future work as well as the development of youth-centered mHealth tools that can be implemented and sustained over time for diverse types of youths. Implementation science research that prioritizes youths' engagement is needed to advance the current understanding of mHealth implementation. Moreover, core outcome sets may support a youth-centered measurement strategy to capture outcomes in a systematic way that prioritizes equity, diversity, inclusion, and robust measurement science. Finally, this study suggests that future practice and policy research are needed to ensure the risk of mHealth is minimized and that this innovative health care service is meeting the emerging needs of youths over time.

Project description:BackgroundThe public's understanding of science can be influential in a wide range of areas related to public health, including policy making and self-care. Through the digital and social media ecosystem, health scientists play a growing role in public science communication (SC).ObjectiveThis review aimed to (1) synthesize the literature on SC initiated by health scientists targeting the public in the digital and social media ecosystem and (2) describe the SC strategies and communication channels used.MethodsThis scoping review was based on the Joanna Briggs Institute Methodological Framework. A systematic search was performed in 6 databases (January 2000 to April 2018). Title and abstract screening, full-text review, data charting, and critical appraisal were performed independently by two review authors. Data regarding included studies and communication channels were synthesized descriptively. A typology of SC strategies was developed using a qualitative and inductive method of data synthesis.ResultsAmong 960 unique publications identified, 18 met inclusion criteria. A third of publications scored good quality (6/18, 33%), half scored moderate quality (9/18, 50%), and less than a fifth scored low quality (3/18, 16%). Overall, 75 SC strategies used by health scientists were identified. These were grouped into 9 types: content, credibility, engagement, intention, linguistics, planification, presentation, social exchange, and statistics. A total of 5 types of communication channels were identified: social networking platforms (eg, Twitter), content-sharing platforms (eg, YouTube), digital research communities (eg, ResearchGate), personal blogs and websites (eg, WordPress), and social news aggregation and discussion platforms (eg, Reddit).ConclusionsEvidence suggests that multiple types of SC strategies and communication channels are used by health scientists concurrently. Few empirical studies have been conducted on SC by health scientists in the digital and social media ecosystem. Future studies should examine the appropriateness and effectiveness of SC strategies for improving public health-related outcomes and identify the barriers, facilitators, and ethical considerations inherent to the involvement of health scientists in the digital and social media ecosystem.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Information and communication technologies have long become prominent components of health systems. Rapid advances in digital technologies and data science over the last few years are predicted to have a vast impact on health care services, configuring a paradigm shift into what is now commonly referred to as digital health. Forecasted to curb rising health costs as well as to improve health system efficiency and safety, digital health success heavily relies on trust from professional end users, administrators, and patients. Yet, what counts as the building blocks of trust in digital health systems has so far remained underexplored. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to analyze what relevant stakeholders consider as enablers and impediments of trust in digital health. METHODS:We performed a scoping review to map out trust in digital health. To identify relevant digital health studies, we searched 5 electronic databases. Using keywords and Medical Subject Headings, we targeted all relevant studies and set no boundaries for publication year to allow a broad range of studies to be identified. The studies were screened by 2 reviewers after which a predefined data extraction strategy was employed and relevant themes documented. RESULTS:Overall, 278 qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, and intervention studies in English, published between 1998 and 2017 and conducted in 40 countries were included in this review. Patients and health care professionals were the two most prominent stakeholders of trust in digital health; a third-health administrators-was substantially less prominent. Our analysis identified cross-cutting personal, institutional, and technological elements of trust that broadly cluster into 16 enablers (altruism, fair data access, ease of use, self-efficacy, sociodemographic factors, recommendation by other users, usefulness, customizable design features, interoperability, privacy, initial face-to-face contact, guidelines for standardized use, stakeholder engagement, improved communication, decreased workloads, and service provider reputation) and 10 impediments (excessive costs, limited accessibility, sociodemographic factors, fear of data exploitation, insufficient training, defective technology, poor information quality, inadequate publicity, time-consuming, and service provider reputation) to trust in digital health. CONCLUSIONS:Trust in digital health technologies and services depends on the interplay of a complex set of enablers and impediments. This study is a contribution to ongoing efforts to understand what determines trust in digital health according to different stakeholders. Therefore, it offers valuable points of reference for the implementation of innovative digital health services. Building on insights from this study, actionable metrics can be developed to assess the trustworthiness of digital technologies in health care.

Project description:BackgroundMedical schools worldwide are accelerating the introduction of digital health courses into their curricula. The COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to this swift and widespread transition to digital health and education. However, the need for digital health competencies goes beyond the COVID-19 pandemic because they are becoming essential for the delivery of effective, efficient, and safe care.ObjectiveThis review aims to collate and analyze studies evaluating digital health education for medical students to inform the development of future courses and identify areas where curricula may need to be strengthened.MethodsWe carried out a scoping review by following the guidance of the Joanna Briggs Institute, and the results were reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. We searched 6 major bibliographic databases and gray literature sources for articles published between January 2000 and November 2019. Two authors independently screened the retrieved citations and extracted the data from the included studies. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus discussions between the authors. The findings were analyzed using thematic analysis and presented narratively.ResultsA total of 34 studies focusing on different digital courses were included in this review. Most of the studies (22/34, 65%) were published between 2010 and 2019 and originated in the United States (20/34, 59%). The reported digital health courses were mostly elective (20/34, 59%), were integrated into the existing curriculum (24/34, 71%), and focused mainly on medical informatics (17/34, 50%). Most of the courses targeted medical students from the first to third year (17/34, 50%), and the duration of the courses ranged from 1 hour to 3 academic years. Most of the studies (22/34, 65%) reported the use of blended education. A few of the studies (6/34, 18%) delivered courses entirely digitally by using online modules, offline learning, massive open online courses, and virtual patient simulations. The reported courses used various assessment approaches such as paper-based assessments, in-person observations, and online assessments. Most of the studies (30/34, 88%) evaluated courses mostly by using an uncontrolled before-and-after design and generally reported improvements in students' learning outcomes.ConclusionsDigital health courses reported in literature are mostly elective, focus on a single area of digital health, and lack robust evaluation. They have diverse delivery, development, and assessment approaches. There is an urgent need for high-quality studies that evaluate digital health education.

Project description:BackgroundDigital technologies are increasingly integrating into people's daily living environments such as schools, sport clubs, and health care facilities. These settings play a crucial role for health promotion and prevention because they affect the health of their members, as the World Health Organization has declared. Implementing digital health promotion and prevention in settings offers the opportunity to reach specific target groups, lower the costs of implementation, and improve the health of the population. Currently, there is a lack of scientific evidence that reviews the research on digital health promotion and prevention in settings.ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to provide an overview of research targeting digital health promotion and primary prevention in settings. It assesses the range of scientific literature regarding outcomes such as applied technology, targeted setting, and area of health promotion or prevention, as well as identifies research gaps.MethodsThe scoping review was conducted following the Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien framework. We searched scientific databases and gray literature for articles on digital setting-based health promotion and prevention published from 2010 to January 2020. We included empirical and nonempirical publications in English or German and excluded secondary or tertiary prevention and health promotion at the workplace.ResultsFrom 8888 records, the search resulted in 200 (2.25%) included publications. We identified a huge diversity of literature regarding digital setting-based health promotion and prevention. The variety of technology types extends from computer- and web-based programs to mobile devices (eg, smartphone apps) and telemonitoring devices (sensors). We found analog, digital, and blended settings in which digital health promotion and prevention takes place. The most frequent analog settings were schools (39/200, 19.5%) and neighborhoods or communities (24/200, 12%). Social media apps were also included because in some studies they were defined as a (digital) setting. They accounted for 31.5% (63/200) of the identified settings. The most commonly focused areas of health promotion and prevention were physical activity (81/200, 40.5%), nutrition (45/200, 22.5%), and sexual health (34/200, 17%). Most of the interventions combined several health promotion or prevention methods, including environmental change; providing information, social support, training, or incentives; and monitoring. Finally, we found that the articles mostly reported on behavioral rather than structural health promotion and prevention.ConclusionsThe research field of digital health promotion and prevention in settings is heterogeneous. At the same time, we identified research gaps regarding the absence of valid definitions of relevant terms (eg, digital settings) and the lack of literature on structural health promotion and prevention in settings. Therefore, it remains unclear how digital technologies can contribute to structural (or organizational) changes in settings. More research is needed to successfully implement digital technologies to achieve health promotion and prevention in settings.