Beyond effectiveness evaluation: Contributing to the discussion on complexity of digital health interventions with examples from cancer care

Abstract

Digital health interventions (DHIs) have become essential complementary solutions in health care to enhance support and communication at a distance, with evidence of improving patient outcomes. Improving clinical outcomes is a major determinant of success in any health intervention, influencing its funding, development, adoption and implementation in real-world practice. In this article we explore our experiences of developing and testing DHIs to identify and discuss complexity challenges along their intervention research lifecycle. Informed by the case study research approach, we selected three individual DHIs aimed at satisfying the supportive and educational needs of people living with cancer. The Care Expert, the Digi-Do and the Gatapp were underpinned on different complexity frameworks i.e., the Medical Research Council framework and the Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability framework. This variance on the methodological underpinning was expected to prompt a multifaceted discussion on the complexity dimensions endorsed by each of the frameworks. Our discussion endorses the adoption of mixed-methods research designs, to gather the perspectives of stakeholders and end-users, as well as pragmatic evaluation approaches that value effectiveness outcomes as much as process outcomes. Furthermore, the dissemination and sustainability agenda of DHIs needs to be considered from early-stage development with the inclusion of a business model. This business plan should be worked in partnership with healthcare services, regulatory bodies and industry, aiming to assure the management of the DHI throughout time.

Integration of art and technology in personalized radiation oncology care: Experiences, evidence, and perspectives

“…Ashmore et al emphasized that digital technology should also be used to maintain contact with the facility also between the end of care and the subsequent follow-up when the toxicity may occur or exacerbate ( 123 ). This participatory design and co-creation mode is also considered central to ensuring equity in digital health intervention ( 124 , 125 ). Bhargava et al ( 126 ) confirmed the possibility of cost reduction through digital technology introducing a digital remote symptoms self-reporting application.…”

Smart Healthy Age-Friendly Environments (SHAFE) Bridging Innovation to Health Promotion and Health Service Provision

“…To overcome such challenges, user involvement has indeed become mandatory for many technological innovations in different sectors, yet very little attention has been given to its epistemic process [83]. Seeing the citizen as a partner demands challenging one's own accommodative perspective, through which science and technology are mere solutions, to consider the importance of designing, developing, testing, and implementing digital technologies that are usable, used, and useful for citizens [84,85]. Empowering citizens to foster their involvement as partners is therefore crucial to providing sensitive guidance on design features of digital technology that are likely to be most relevant in a particular context for a given population, thereby enhancing its potential for successful and well-accepted implementation [85][86][87].…”

Digital Health Psychosocial Intervention in Adult Patients With Cancer and Their Families: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…In this report, we refer to digital health intervention as the use of digital, mobile, and wireless technologies to deliver an intervention. Digital health interventions have gained popularity due to their geographic accessibility, self-paced nature, user-friendly design, up-to-date information provision, and time-sensitive interaction with health care providers [ 13 , 14 ]. Further, digital interventions have significant potential for reaching people, mainly in rural areas or people with limited mobility [ 15 ].…”