Methods to Evaluate the Effects of Internet-Based Digital Health Interventions for Citizens: Systematic Review of Reviews

Zanaboni, Paolo; Ngangue, Patrice; Mbemba, Gisèle Irène Claudine; Schopf, Thomas R.; Bergmo, Trine Strand; Gagnon, Marie‐Pierre

doi:10.2196/10202

Cited by 74 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, smart assistants have been evaluated for their response accuracy [ 5 ] and their general usability [ 6 ]. While considerable research has been conducted assessing digital health approaches, such as text message–based approaches and mobile apps for a range of health behaviors [ 7 - 9 ], few have included smart assistant responses to health-related queries. For instance, a pilot study comparing two smart assistants (Google Assistant and Apple Siri) to a standard Google Search on the topic of smoking cessation resources found that Google Assistant provided a greater number of evidence-based responses [ 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Smart Assistant Responses for Accuracy and Misinformation Regarding Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: Content Analysis Study

Ferrand¹,

Hockensmith²,

Houghton³

et al. 2020

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Almost half (46%) of Americans have used a smart assistant of some kind (eg, Apple Siri), and 25% have used a stand-alone smart assistant (eg, Amazon Echo). This positions smart assistants as potentially useful modalities for retrieving health-related information; however, the accuracy of smart assistant responses lacks rigorous evaluation. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the levels of accuracy, misinformation, and sentiment in smart assistant responses to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination–related questions. Methods We systematically examined responses to questions about the HPV vaccine from the following four most popular smart assistants: Apple Siri, Google Assistant, Amazon Alexa, and Microsoft Cortana. One team member posed 10 questions to each smart assistant and recorded all queries and responses. Two raters independently coded all responses (κ=0.85). We then assessed differences among the smart assistants in terms of response accuracy, presence of misinformation, and sentiment regarding the HPV vaccine. Results A total of 103 responses were obtained from the 10 questions posed across the smart assistants. Google Assistant data were excluded owing to nonresponse. Over half (n=63, 61%) of the responses of the remaining three smart assistants were accurate. We found statistically significant differences across the smart assistants (N=103, χ22=7.807, P=.02), with Cortana yielding the greatest proportion of misinformation. Siri yielded the greatest proportion of accurate responses (n=26, 72%), whereas Cortana yielded the lowest proportion of accurate responses (n=33, 54%). Most response sentiments across smart assistants were positive (n=65, 64%) or neutral (n=18, 18%), but Cortana’s responses yielded the largest proportion of negative sentiment (n=7, 12%). Conclusions Smart assistants appear to be average-quality sources for HPV vaccination information, with Alexa responding most reliably. Cortana returned the largest proportion of inaccurate responses, the most misinformation, and the greatest proportion of results with negative sentiments. More collaboration between technology companies and public health entities is necessary to improve the retrieval of accurate health information via smart assistants.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Smart Assistant Responses for Accuracy and Misinformation Regarding Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: Content Analysis Study

Ferrand¹,

Hockensmith²,

Houghton³

et al. 2020

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…14 In health services where portals have been successfully implemented, patient access to their health records and messaging has been reported to improve communication, patient understanding of health information, engagement and selfmanagement, as well as sharing biomedical information that may result in greater patient safety. 23,24,[35][36][37] There is no evidence of portals causing increased concern or anxiety among patients. 35 However, providing patients with access to health records might interfere with doctors' collection of psychosocial and emotional information, leading to a call for improvements so that portals and EHRs can capture useful data without disturbing patients' and physicians' ability to communicate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perspectives of New Zealand patients and GPs at the beginning of patient portal implementation

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION: New Zealand health policy encourages patient access to their electronic medical records via portals.AIM: To discover patient and general practitioner (GP) perspectives of access to electronic medical records and e-messaging in the early portal implementation phase. METHODS:In 2014, Auckland primary health organisations and an Accident & Medical organisation were asked to invite their GPs to complete an online survey and consent for a researcher to attend their waiting room and invite patients to complete a survey. RESULTS:In total, 421 patients (13% Maori, 18% Pacific, 7% Asian, 53% NZ European/Other) participated from 13 general practices. Most (77%) knew they were entitled to see their medical records and 90% were interested in viewing them. Over two-thirds thought that viewing their records online and e-messaging their practice was a good idea. Over 80% disagreed that they would be worried, confused or embarrassed by seeing their records, with 59% expecting portals to facilitate understanding of their medical conditions. Internet security and privacy concerned 40% of patients. Among 83 GPs who completed the survey, six (7%) had already implemented portals. Few were comfortable to open up the whole health record, especially visit notes. While GPs thought that portal access may help patients better understand their plan of care, their main concerns related to causing confusion and worry. Portal implementation was expected to change GP documentation and increase practice workload and costs without demonstrable benefit to practices. DISCUSSION:At the beginning of portal adoption, patients were interested. GPs were more reticent, unsure whether the benefits would outweigh the downsides for their patients and practice workload.

show abstract

“…We will consider the following ‘Problem, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes’ elements: (P): three targeted chronic diseases (diabetes, high blood pressure, dyslipidaemia), alone or combined; (I) all eHealth interventions implemented in primary care and that directly involve patients (eg, electronic medical records (EMRs), patient diary, patient portal, specific computerised monitoring for a chronic disease and technological interventions focused on lifestyle modifications; (C): routine follow-up; (O): health outcomes specific to the disease (eg, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) for diabetes), generic health outcomes (eg, mortality, quality of life), patient outcomes (eg, involvement, personal efficacy) and practices and process outcomes (eg, test numbers, emergency visits, hospitalisations). First, we will start to consult existing systematic reviews, in particular, that of Irizarry et al ,38 and a review of reviews that we have already completed 49. We will also document issues relating to needs, expectations and concerns in terms of eHealth solutions for patients, their informal caregivers and healthcare providers.…”

Section: Methods and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimising patient active role with a user-centred eHealth platform (CONCERTO+) in chronic diseases management: a study protocol for a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionMultimorbidity increases care needs and primary care use among people with chronic diseases. The Concerto Health Program (CHP) has been developed to optimise chronic disease management in primary care services. However, in its current version, the CHP primarily targets clinicians and does not aim to answer directly patients’ and their informal caregivers’ needs for chronic disease management. Various studies have shown that interventions that increase patient activation level are associated with better health outcomes. Furthermore, educational tools must be adapted to patients and caregivers in terms of health literacy and usability. This project aims to develop, implement and evaluate a user-centred, multifunctional and personalised eHealth platform (CONCERTO+) to promote a more active patient role in chronic disease management and decision-making.Methods and analysisThis project uses a collaborative research approach, aiming at the personalisation of CHP through three phases: (1) the development of one module of an eHealth platform based on scientific evidence and user-centred design; (2) a feasibility study of CONCERTO+ through a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial where patients with chronic diseases from a primary healthcare practice will receive CONCERTO+ during 6 months and be compared to patients from a control practice receiving usual care and (3) an analysis of CONCERTO+ potential for scaling up. To do so, we will conduct two focus groups with patients and informal caregivers and individual interviews with health professionals at the two study sites, as well as health care managers, information officers and representatives of the Ministry of Health.Ethics and disseminationThis study received ethical approval from Ethics Committee of Université Laval. The findings will be used to inform the effectiveness of CONCERTO+ to improve management care in chronic diseases. We will disseminate findings through presentations in scientific conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT03628963; Pre-results.

show abstract

Methods to Evaluate the Effects of Internet-Based Digital Health Interventions for Citizens: Systematic Review of Reviews

Cited by 74 publications

References 48 publications

Evaluating Smart Assistant Responses for Accuracy and Misinformation Regarding Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: Content Analysis Study

Evaluating Smart Assistant Responses for Accuracy and Misinformation Regarding Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: Content Analysis Study

Perspectives of New Zealand patients and GPs at the beginning of patient portal implementation

Optimising patient active role with a user-centred eHealth platform (CONCERTO+) in chronic diseases management: a study protocol for a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About