Digital health
-
To summarize the current status of, and the current expert opinions, recommendation and evidence associated with the use and implementation of electronic health (eHealth), telemedicine, and/or telehealth to provide healthcare services for chronic disease patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. ⋯ There is limited evidence available about the effectiveness of such solutions. Further research is required during this pandemic to improve the credibility of evidence on telemedicine, telehealth, and/or eHealth-related outcomes for those living with chronic diseases.
-
Mobile health applications (mHealth apps) currently lack a consensus on substantial quality and safety standards. As such, the number of individuals engaging with untrustworthy mHealth apps continues to grow at a steady pace. ⋯ This study contributes to the evidence base on the attributes of trustworthy mHealth apps. The mHealth app trustworthiness checklist is a useful tool in advancing continued efforts to ensure that health technologies are trustworthy.
-
Only a few digital interventions have been developed for pregnant smokers, and little is known about the acceptability and usability of smartphone apps to aid cessation in pregnancy. This study aimed to explore pregnant smokers' views on the design, content and usability of a pregnancy-specific smoking cessation app in order to inform intervention development and optimisation. ⋯ Delivering smoking cessation support via a smartphone app can be feasible and acceptable for pregnant smokers. They appear to value content that is motivational, educational and personalised, and meeting these requirements may be important for user experience and promoting engagement with the intervention.
-
Digitally enabled healthcare services combine socio-technical resources to deliver the required outcomes to patients. Unintended operation of these services may result in adverse effects to the patient. Eliminating avoidable harm requires a systematic way of analysing the causal conditions, identifying opportunities for intervention. Operators of such services may be required to justify, and communicate, their safety. For example, the UK Standardisation Committee for Care Information (SCCI) standards 0129 and 0160 require a safety justification for health IT (superseded versions were known as the Information Standards Board (ISB) 0129 & 0160. Initial as well as current standards are maintained by the NHS Digital. ⋯ Application of the framework significantly contributed to systematising an exploratory approach for analysing the service, in addition to existing methods such as reporting. Its application made the causal chain to harm more diaphanous. Constructing a safety case contributed to: (a) identifying potential assurance gaps, (b) planning production of information and evidence, and (c) communication of the justification by graphical unambiguous means.