MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048711289 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037643

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

2020· review· en· W3048711289 on OpenAlexaff
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

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsCanadian Foundation for Healthcare ImprovementLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteHealth Sciences CentreSinai Health SystemSunnybrook Health Science CentreCanada Health InfowayUniversity of TorontoHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Psychological interventionHealth services researchDigital healthHealth informaticsPublic healthData scienceHealth careAlternative medicineNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.006

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.598
GPT teacher head0.734
Teacher spread0.136 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207