Exploring the Use of Evidence From the Development and Evaluation of an Electronic Health (eHealth) Trial: Case Study

Abstract

Background Evidence-based practice refers to building clinical decisions on credible research evidence, professional experience, and patient preferences. However, there is a growing concern that evidence in the context of electronic health (eHealth) is not sufficiently used when forming policies and practice of health care. In this context, using evaluation and research evidence in clinical or policy decisions dominates the discourse. However, the use of additional types of evidence, such as professional experience, is underexplored. Moreover, there might be other ways of using evidence than in clinical or policy decisions. Objective This study aimed to analyze how different types of evidence (such as evaluation outcomes [including patient preferences], professional experiences, and existing scientific evidence from other research) obtained within the development and evaluation of an eHealth trial are used by diverse stakeholders. An additional aim was to identify barriers to the use of evidence and ways to support its use. Methods This study was built on a case of an eHealth trial funded by the European Union. The project included 4 care centers, 2 research and development companies that provided the web-based physical exercise program and an activity monitoring device, and 2 science institutions. The qualitative data collection included 9 semistructured interviews conducted 8 months after the evaluation was concluded. The data analysis concerned (1) activities and decisions that were made based on evidence after the project ended, (2) evidence used for those activities and decisions, (3) in what way the evidence was used, and (4) barriers to the use of evidence. Results Evidence generated from eHealth trials can be used by various stakeholders for decisions regarding clinical integration of eHealth solutions, policy making, scientific publishing, research funding applications, eHealth technology, and teaching. Evaluation evidence has less value than professional experiences to local decision making regarding eHealth integration into clinical practice. Professional experiences constitute the evidence that is valuable to the highest variety of activities and decisions in relation to eHealth trials. When using existing scientific evidence related to eHealth trials, it is important to consider contextual relevance, such as location or disease. To support the use of evidence, it is suggested to create possibilities for health care professionals to gain experience, assess a few rather than a large number of variables, and design for shorter iterative cycles of evaluation. Conclusions Initiatives to support and standardize evidence-based practice in the context of eHealth should consider the complexities in how the evidence is used in order to achieve better uptake of evidence in practice. However, one should be aware that the assumption of fact-based decision making in organizations is misleading. In order to create better chances that the evidence produced would be used, this should be addressed through the design of eHealth trials.

Changes in a Digital Type 2 Diabetes Self-management Intervention During National Rollout: Mixed Methods Study of Fidelity

“…Addressing this issue is likely to require a shift in the way that academic health research is funded as funding is often focused on commissioning research on effectiveness rather than on the implementation stages of digital development, both of which are necessary to create effective digital interventions that are implementable outside the context of clinical trials [ 74 ]. Health funding needs to accommodate faster and more efficient methods of evaluation that enable the iterative development of digital interventions across their life cycles [ 75 , 76 ], such as the Multiphase Optimization Strategy [ 77 ]. There appears to be growing recognition of this.…”

Exploring Health and Design Evidence Practices in Ehealth Systems’ Development

“…Paramount to this epistemology is that what is reasonable or justifiable to believe depends on the trustworthiness of the evidence and the degree to which one believes that a credible process determines this evidence (Djulbegovic and Guyatt, 2017). Accordingly, in eHealth, 'evidence' is regarded as results from scientific research and evaluation, existing scientific literature, and professional experience (Jurkeviciute and Eriksson, 2020). This 'evidence' can refer to multiple aspects of the eHealth system, such as technical, human, societal, clinical, economical, organisational, transferability, ethical, and legal (Enam et al, 2018).…”

“…Thus, this hierarchy rates systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials at the highest level and expert opinions and untested theories at the lowest. Finally, evidence is used in decision-making during eHealth development, scientific publishing, funding proposals, and teaching (Jurkeviciute and Eriksson, 2020).…”