Digital Health Project (DHP) evaluation framework

Tips for the Digital Health Assessment Framework

Evaluating health interventions requires an understanding of the different health evaluation frameworks used in digital health interventions. Digital health projects require evaluation to determine the effectiveness, safety, risk, efficiency and success of implementation. This also requires an assessment of the costs and benefits of the implementation process. The Digital Health Project is a health monitoring system for COVID-19 patients in rural areas. In the next article, we will explore the Digital Health Project (DHP) evaluation framework. There are many different digital health interventions and projects that have been developed to solve specific problems within health services. These interventions are critical to meeting client needs, especially those aimed at reaching patients in remote areas. There are many reasons to conduct evaluations of digital health interventions. These digital health information systems should be evaluated to determine feasibility and return on investment (Soobiah et al., 2020).

You need to understand some of the areas and elements that make up a key aspect of your digital health project. First, the Use and Accessibility area represents an important aspect of digital health and deals with project usability and project accessibility. This is very important for everyone involved to use the project according to its intended purpose. Second, digital health projects include another area as part of their assessment: risks associated with the project. Digital health has several risks that are part of evaluating any health intervention. Third, project evaluation requires the utility of health interventions. Fourth, data systems are another area that is part of the digital health system. This includes various forms of data collected as part of digital health projects, data management, and security of collected data (Eisner et al., 2019).

By evaluating Digital Health projects, you can determine whether your users have access to these projects. First, the Digital Health Assessment Framework enables specific focused improvement decisions. Evaluation frameworks are specific and focus on outcomes for specific intervention and improvement areas. This means that assessments identify areas in health interventions that need improvement (Khoja et al., 2013).

Second, evaluation frameworks seek to determine the potential safety or risks posed by digital health interventions. To determine the safety of a digital health intervention or project, a risk- or safety-focused digital health assessment framework is used. Additionally, digital health interventions require close monitoring and evaluation to determine the safety of these projects for end users. For example, are these intrusions safe or is the security of the data collected guaranteed? This can be determined by a thorough evaluation of digital health interventions.

Scenario

Third, the evaluation framework aims to judge the effectiveness of health interventions. Health interventions, especially those that take place in rural areas, are designed to work flawlessly. This efficiency can be determined by an efficiency-focused digital assessment framework (Chan et al., 2015).

Fourth, personalization is another area that the evaluation framework seeks to address in order to effectively implement the project. Most of the interventions used in the medical field require individualization towards person-centred care. Finally, evaluation frameworks help determine the accessibility of health interventions, especially from the user’s perspective (Bartholomew et al., 2016).

The healthcare scenario includes Happy Valley Base Hospital (HVBH) running a digital healthcare project. This digital health project was developed in response to COVID-19, using hospitals for home care. This is intended to deal with the expected surge in COVID-19 cases. The primary focus of digital medical information systems consists of health monitoring systems. Therefore, assessment of monitoring and information technology for home patient care is critical to ensure effective implementation. The project is based on his 500-bed hospital and targets her 200,000 people in rural areas. A comprehensive evaluation framework is needed to evaluate local COVID-19 patient health surveillance systems.

There are various health intervention evaluation frameworks that can be used to evaluate health surveillance systems. These digital health assessment frameworks complement each other and enable a comprehensive approach to assessing health interventions. Some of the proposed assessment frameworks for health interventions are:

1. Integrate, Design, Assess, Share (IDEAS)
2. 6 Steps to Developing Quality Interventions (6SQuID)
3. PRECEED-PROCEED model
4. Integrate, Design, Assess, Share (IDEAS)

The Integrate, Design, Assess and Share (IDEAS) framework incorporates design thinking and intervention design approaches. This framework was chosen because it is designed to evaluate digital health interventions and is also a digital health project. This framework is user-centric and may address a person-centric approach important in healthcare (Mummah et al., 2016). This is the basis for using IDEAS in assessments. This framework has several components such as integration, design, scoring and sharing. This framework was designed to accompany a project from concept stage through post-implementation evaluation.

This framework integrates the various components of the project such as users, data, technology and theory. Health monitoring systems require an integrative approach to integrate users and theory into a coherent context. During the design phase of the evaluation, user feedback is considered and the technology is designed and redesigned for future effectiveness. The evaluation element of the framework is based on project evaluation and evaluation of the project through the pilot phase. This means that the framework has the ability to evaluate both during the pilot phase and during post-implementation evaluation. The shared component focuses on disseminating interventions and their results to key stakeholders. This will allow lessons learned from the project to be shared with the leadership team (Fedele et al., 2019). Evaluation framework

Using IDEAS to assess requires an understanding of the entire healthcare information system. First, the integration phase of the design framework is used to evaluate users of the health monitoring system along with user behavior and behavioral theory. This helps determine user integration into health monitoring systems. The evaluation is carried out by collecting data from users based on questionnaires and user feedback, from the system itself. Secondly, IDEAS reviews the design process of health monitoring system and establishes various design parameters. IDEAS works on designing monitoring technology, which includes areas such as data entry methods, actual patient monitoring, and user feedback. This phase includes an evaluation of the health monitoring system itself, users and implementation strategies. Evaluation is done by collecting user feedback. Third, the evaluation framework will be implemented through a pilot program that tests the effectiveness of the project. The team will run a pilot aimed at enrolling people and testing the system. Finally, the evaluation of the project will take into account the lessons learned from the project, collecting data from users through RCT studies.

The PRECEED-PROCEED model is another model chosen to evaluate health surveillance systems for COVID-19 projects. This framework focuses on the needs of intervention design, its implementation and subsequent evaluation. This framework was chosen to complement the IDEAS framework, which focuses on design thinking. The PRECEED-PROCEED model considers factors that influence the choice of health intervention. The model is divided into two parts, PRECEED and PROCEED (Skivington et al., 2021). First, his PRECEED portion of the assessment framework focuses on preparing, enhancing and activating components. These are the parameters used to assess factors that influence the need for intervention.

In the Happy Valley Base Hospital scenario, COVID-19 requires an understanding of the social, epidemiological, environmental and coercive factors driving the need for health surveillance and enforcement. Second, PROCEED is an acronym for policies, regulations and organizational structures in education and environmental development. This framework component helps determine the outcome and implementation of the project. Framework components are designed for project implementation, process evaluation, impact evaluation, and results evaluation. PRECEED-PROCEED is therefore a comprehensive evaluation framework that evaluates interventions from different perspectives to ensure efficacy. This is important to ensure that the project considers the factors affecting the prevention and control of the global COVID-19 pandemic (Crosby & Noar, 2011).

Assess with Integrate, Design, Assess, Share (IDEAS)

Evaluation by PRECEED-PROCEED model

The PRECEED-PROCEED model is used to evaluate health monitoring systems by evaluating various components. First, the model is used to evaluate the implementation of the project by evaluating the various components of the project. Data for the assessment is collected from various parties such as management, medical staff, patients, and system administrators. Data is evaluated to determine the efficiency of the system for users. Second, process assessment is another component of health interventions that focus on processes within the system itself. For example, the process of using the system or alerting medical staff. Third, the assessment framework assesses the impact of health surveillance systems. It does this by collecting data from the system, hospital registries and users of the system. This data includes the number of people using the system, the number of patients who have helped using the system, or the number of patients admitted to the system.

6SQuID is another assessment framework that can be used to assess case scenarios. 6SQuID focuses on the design and feasibility of interventions that are critical to assessing health surveillance systems and their feasibility in rural areas. Furthermore, this framework aims to take steps to develop high-quality interventions that are integral to health surveillance systems (Wight et al., 016). The six steps to developing quality interventions include understanding problems and causes, situational factors, mechanisms of change, categorizing outcomes, testing and adjusting interventions, and gathering evidence for evaluation. Following these steps will avoid wasting resources during intervention evaluation and implementation. This framework brings perspective to the design and evaluation of health interventions. Furthermore, this framework allows us to establish the feasibility of interventions prior to project implementation.

Reference

Bartholomew, L.K., et al. (2016). Planning health promotion programs; an Intervention Mapping approach. 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bartholomew,%20L.K.,%20et%20al.%20Planning%20health%20promotion%20programs;%20an%20Intervention%20Mapping%20approach%20.%204th%20ed.%20San%20Francisco,%20CA:%20Jossey-Bass,%202016.

Chan, S., et al. (2015). Towards a Framework for Evaluating Mobile Mental Health Apps. Telemedicine Journal and E-Health, 21(12):1038–1041,.10.1089/tmj.2015.0002

Christopoulou, S.C., Kotsilieris, T. & Anagnostopoulos, I.. (2018). Assessment of Health Information Technology Interventions in Evidence-Based Medicine: A Systematic Review by Adopting a Methodological Evaluation Framework. Healthcare, 6(109):1–22,.10.3390/healthcare6030109

Crosby, R. & Noar, S. (2011). PRECEDE-PROCEED Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 71 Suppl 1: S7-15. https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/toolkits/health-promotion/2/program-models/precede-proceed

Eisner, E., Bucci, S., Berry, N., Emsley, R., Barrowclough, C. & Drake, R.J. (2019). Feasibility of using a smartphone app to assess early signs, basic symptoms and psychotic symptoms over six months: a preliminary report. Schizophr Res. 208:105–13. https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.schres.2019.04.003

Fedele, D.A., et al. (2019). Design Considerations When Creating Pediatric Mobile Health Interventions: Applying the IDEAS Framework. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 44(3):343–348,.10.1093/jpepsy/jsy084

Khoja, S., et al. (2013). Conceptual Framework for Development of Comprehensive e-Health Evaluation Tool. Telemedicine and e-Health, 19(1):48–53,.10.1089/tmj.2012.0073

Mummah, S. A., Robinson, T. N., King, A. C., Gardner, C. D., & Sutton, S. (2016). IDEAS (Integrate, Design, Assess, and Share): A Framework and Toolkit of Strategies for the Development of More Effective Digital Interventions to Change Health Behavior. Journal of medical Internet research, 18(12), e317. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5927

Soobiah C, Cooper M, Kishimoto V, et al (2020). Identifying optimal frameworks to implement or evaluate digital health interventions: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open;10:e037643. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037643

Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson S A, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby J M et al. (2021). A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance BMJ, 374 :n2061 doi:10.1136/bmj.n2061

Wight, D., Wimbush, E., Jepson, R., et al (2016). Six steps in quality intervention development (6SQuID) J Epidemiol Community Health;70:520-525.