BackgroundNumerous types of digital health interventions (DHIs) are available to patients and the public but many factors affect their ability to engage and enrol in them. This systematic review aims to identify and synthesise the qualitative literature on barriers and facilitators to engagement and recruitment to DHIs to inform future implementation efforts.MethodsPubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus and the ACM Digital Library were searched for English language qualitative studies from 2000 – 2015 that discussed factors affecting engagement and enrolment in a range of DHIs (e.g. ‘telemedicine’, ‘mobile applications’, ‘personal health record’, ‘social networking’). Text mining and additional search strategies were used to identify 1,448 records. Two reviewers independently carried out paper screening, quality assessment, data extraction and analysis. Data was analysed using framework synthesis, informed by Normalization Process Theory, and Burden of Treatment Theory helped conceptualise the interpretation of results.ResultsNineteen publications were included in the review. Four overarching themes that affect patient and public engagement and enrolment in DHIs emerged; 1) personal agency and motivation; 2) personal life and values; 3) the engagement and recruitment approach; and 4) the quality of the DHI. The review also summarises engagement and recruitment strategies used. A preliminary DIgital Health EnGagement MOdel (DIEGO) was developed to highlight the key processes involved. Existing knowledge gaps are identified and a number of recommendations made for future research. Study limitations include English language publications and exclusion of grey literature.ConclusionThis review summarises and highlights the complexity of digital health engagement and recruitment processes and outlines issues that need to be addressed before patients and the public commit to digital health and it can be implemented effectively. More work is needed to create successful engagement strategies and better quality digital solutions that are personalised where possible and to gain clinical accreditation and endorsement when appropriate. More investment is also needed to improve computer literacy and ensure technologies are accessible and affordable for those who wish to sign up to them.Systematic review registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42015029846Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0359-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Background Online misinformation proliferation during the COVID-19 pandemic has become a major public health concern. Objective We aimed to assess the prevalence of COVID-19 misinformation exposure and beliefs, associated factors including psychological distress with misinformation exposure, and the associations between COVID-19 knowledge and number of preventive behaviors. Methods A cross-sectional online survey was conducted with 1049 South Korean adults in April 2020. Respondents were asked about receiving COVID-19 misinformation using 12 items identified by the World Health Organization. Logistic regression was used to compute adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for the association of receiving misinformation with sociodemographic characteristics, source of information, COVID-19 misinformation belief, and psychological distress, as well as the associations of COVID-19 misinformation belief with COVID-19 knowledge and the number of COVID-19 preventive behaviors among those who received the misinformation. All data were weighted according to the Korea census data in 2018. Results Overall, 67.78% (n=711) of respondents reported exposure to at least one COVID-19 misinformation item. Misinformation exposure was associated with younger age, higher education levels, and lower income. Sources of information associated with misinformation exposure were social networking services (aOR 1.67, 95% CI 1.20-2.32) and instant messaging (aOR 1.79, 1.27-2.51). Misinformation exposure was also associated with psychological distress including anxiety (aOR 1.80, 1.24-2.61), depressive (aOR 1.47, 1.09-2.00), and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms (aOR 1.97, 1.42-2.73), as well as misinformation belief (aOR 7.33, 5.17-10.38). Misinformation belief was associated with poorer COVID-19 knowledge (high: aOR 0.62, 0.45-0.84) and fewer preventive behaviors (≥7 behaviors: aOR 0.54, 0.39-0.74). Conclusions COVID-19 misinformation exposure was associated with misinformation belief, while misinformation belief was associated with fewer preventive behaviors. Given the potential of misinformation to undermine global efforts in COVID-19 disease control, up-to-date public health strategies are required to counter the proliferation of misinformation.

BackgroundDigital health has the potential to support care delivery for chronic illness. Despite positive evidence from localized implementations, new technologies have proven slow to become accepted, integrated, and routinized at scale.ObjectiveThe aim of our study was to examine barriers and facilitators to implementation of digital health at scale through the evaluation of a £37m national digital health program: ‟Delivering Assisted Living Lifestyles at Scale” (dallas) from 2012-2015.MethodsThe study was a longitudinal qualitative, multi-stakeholder, implementation study. The methods included interviews (n=125) with key implementers, focus groups with consumers and patients (n=7), project meetings (n=12), field work or observation in the communities (n=16), health professional survey responses (n=48), and cross program documentary evidence on implementation (n=215). We used a sociological theory called normalization process theory (NPT) and a longitudinal (3 years) qualitative framework analysis approach. This work did not study a single intervention or population. Instead, we evaluated the processes (of designing and delivering digital health), and our outcomes were the identified barriers and facilitators to delivering and mainstreaming services and products within the mixed sector digital health ecosystem.ResultsWe identified three main levels of issues influencing readiness for digital health: macro (market, infrastructure, policy), meso (organizational), and micro (professional or public). Factors hindering implementation included: lack of information technology (IT) infrastructure, uncertainty around information governance, lack of incentives to prioritize interoperability, lack of precedence on accountability within the commercial sector, and a market perceived as difficult to navigate. Factors enabling implementation were: clinical endorsement, champions who promoted digital health, and public and professional willingness.ConclusionsAlthough there is receptiveness to digital health, barriers to mainstreaming remain. Our findings suggest greater investment in national and local infrastructure, implementation of guidelines for the safe and transparent use and assessment of digital health, incentivization of interoperability, and investment in upskilling of professionals and the public would help support the normalization of digital health. These findings will enable researchers, health care practitioners, and policy makers to understand the current landscape and the actions required in order to prepare the market and accelerate uptake, and use of digital health and wellness services in context and at scale.