npj Digital Medicine (Dec 2023)

A sociotechnical framework to assess patient-facing eHealth tools: results of a modified Delphi process

  • Christine Jacob,
  • Johan Lindeque,
  • Roman Müller,
  • Alexander Klein,
  • Thomas Metcalfe,
  • Samantha L. Connolly,
  • Florian Koerber,
  • Roma Maguire,
  • Fabrice Denis,
  • Sabina C. Heuss,
  • Marc K. Peter

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-023-00982-w
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 6, no. 1
pp. 1 – 15

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Among the thousands of eHealth tools available, the vast majority do not get past pilot phases because they cannot prove value, and only a few have been systematically assessed. Although multiple eHealth assessment frameworks have been developed, these efforts face multiple challenges. This study aimed to address some of these challenges by validating and refining an initial list of 55 assessment criteria based on previous frameworks through a two-round modified Delphi process with in-between rounds of interviews. The expert panel (n = 57) included participants from 18 countries and 9 concerned parties. A consensus was reached on 46 criteria that were classified into foundational and contextual criteria. The 36 foundational criteria focus on evaluating the eHealth tool itself and were grouped into nine clusters: technical aspects, clinical utility and safety, usability and human centricity, functionality, content, data management, endorsement, maintenance, and developer. The 10 contextual criteria focus on evaluating the factors that vary depending on the context the tool is being evaluated for and were grouped into seven clusters: data-protection compliance, safety regulatory compliance, interoperability and data integration, cultural requirements, affordability, cost-benefit, and implementability. The classification of criteria into foundational and contextual helps us assess not only the quality of an isolated tool, but also its potential fit in a specific setting. Criteria subscales may be particularly relevant when determining the strengths and weaknesses of the tool being evaluated. This granularity enables different concerned parties to make informed decisions about which tools to consider according to their specific needs and priorities.