Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Introduction The use of health information technologies (HITs) has been associated with positive benefits such as improved health outcomes and improved health services. Results from empirical studies reported potential benefits of HITs in preventive medicine measures such as primary prevention. This review will examine the broad range of HITs and their uses and effectiveness in primary prevention.
Methods and analysis We will conduct searches in relevant databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Methodology Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, SCOPUS and Web of Science) using Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review methodology. The scoping review will include all study designs to identify the literature on HIT uses. Two reviewers will independently screen the literature following our screening criteria and using a data abstraction form. Findings will be summarised quantitatively (using numerical counts of HITs) and qualitatively (using narrative synthesis).
Ethics and dissemination The study will synthesise data from published literature and will not require an ethical approval. The results of the review will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal.
- preventive medicine
- digital health
- health information technologies
- public health
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Strengths and limitations of this study
This study will conduct a comprehensive review of the relevant databases to help inform healthcare professionals, researchers and policy-makers about the latest uses of health information technologies (HITs) for preventive medicine purposes.
It will also help identify gaps in the literature concerning HITs and their effectiveness and uses in preventive medicine.
It will only include English language publications.
It will not perform a formal quality assessment of included studies.
Background
Health information technology (HIT) includes technologies that enable health information to be stored, disseminated and analysed1 and are increasingly used to improve the health of patients and populations. Popular examples of HITs include electronic health records, smartphone health applications (apps) and electronic prescriptions (E-prescribing).1 Evidence from existing systematic reviews and empirical studies found positive effects of using HITs in improving health outcomes. Research shows that HITs can not only improve health outcomes but also contribute to preventing disease and improving preventive medicine practices. Preventive medicine is the practice that focuses on keeping individuals healthy, and its goal is to ‘protect, promote, and maintain health and well-being and to prevent disease, disability, and death’.2 Primary prevention is one of the preventive medicine measures, and it is defined as the prevention of ‘the initial occurrence of a disorder’ by the WHO.3 Despite the potential benefits that HITs can have to improve primary prevention, and the availability of studies about the use of HITs for primary prevention, there are currently no studies that comprehensively review the different types of HITs and their uses in primary prevention.
HITs have seen a growing interest in the literature in recent years and have been repeatedly associated with preventing disease4–6 improving health outcomes,7 improving data collection and the potential to substantially advance healthcare research.8–10 As different HITs proliferate, questions about their effectiveness are being raised. HITs are associated with positive outcomes in healthcare in general such as ‘efficiency of care’, ‘effectiveness of care’ and ‘patient safety’.10
Reviews related to the use of HITs in primary prevention focus on only one or two types of HITs (eg, telephone-based interventions only).11 Most of the studies that focus on primary prevention outcomes focus on one tool or method of HITs like electronic health records8 or mobile health technologies.5 However, these studies are not representative of the whole range of HITs that can be used in primary prevention. In addition, some of the currently available reviews, even if include more than one HIT, only focus on one or two primary prevention outcomes (eg, smoking).9
This review will focus on gathering information on what is available rather than which interventions work best. This general focus allows the examination of all the available interventions in HITs. In this review, we will map out the findings and results of studies published about HITs and their uses in primary prevention in preventive medicine. A scoping review can help clarify to what extent are HITs used for primary prevention purposes, and what is the range of the HITs available. We will synthesise the available evidence to inform how technology could be developed to impact primary prevention in preventive medicine. In this protocol, we have reviewed some HITs used for primary prevention in table 1, as examples of the scoping review outcomes that will result from the study.
Description of preliminary list of existing health information technology uses in primary prevention
Aims and objectives
The aim of this review is to provide an overview of all HITs that are used for the purpose of primary prevention or to achieve primary prevention outcomes. Through this review, the available HITs, their uses, limitations and gaps in the literature regarding their use in primary prevention will be reported. The objectives of the review are the following:
To identify the HITs that are used for primary prevention and to analyse both the benefits and risks achieved by their use.
To identify the primary prevention patient outcomes that are impacted by the use of HITs.
Methods
To outline the protocol of the forthcoming scoping review, we will be using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols (online supplementary appendix 1).
Supplementary file 1
Protocol design
We will use the Arksey and O’Malley methodological framework for scoping reviews in performing the review. The framework recommends the following six steps to conduct a scoping review: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) selecting studies; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarising and reporting the results.12 This framework is being used for this review because it applies a rapid form of knowledge synthesis, with the intent to identify the merits of the underlying research question. This form of review is intended to be a precursor for potential further work, as on initial analysis it is unclear if a more sophisticated review method is warranted.
Stage 1: identifying the research question
The preliminary research (table 1) revealed that there are no review studies that reviewed the different HIT approaches used in primary prevention and exposed a research gap that motivated the focus of this protocol. The main research question and the secondary research questions of the scoping review are displayed in table 2.
Scoping review primary and secondary research questions
Stage 2: identifying relevant studies
Search strategy
We will conduct searches in relevant electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Methodology Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, SCOPUS and Web of Science. The initial literature search strategy used for MEDLINE can be found in online supplementary appendix 2, including the medical subheadings (MeSH) and free-text terms used to perform the search. The search strategy will be modified for each database and further iterated as we explore the research question with changes captured in the review process. Studies will not be limited in terms of year or study design. Only studies in English language will be reviewed. Apart from electronic databases, we will also search reference lists of the studies selected for full-text reading to supplement the search.
Stage 3: Study selection
Screening of the studies will be performed by two suitably experienced/qualified reviewers and in two levels. Table 3 outlines the inclusion criteria that will be used by the reviewers to determine the studies that will be included. The citation management software program, EndNote X8.2 (Clarivate Analytics, USA), will be used to manage records and data and to remove duplicates. The first screening will involve screening the title and abstracts. Using two reviewers will ensure that all relevant articles are included. The reviewers will use the predefined relevance criteria to determine relevant studies. In the second round of screening, the reviewers will perform full-text reading of the studies identified in the previous round. Conflicts and discrepancies will be resolved by discussing with a third party.
Review inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Interventions that focus on secondary or tertiary prevention will be excluded to keep the focus on the primary prevention interventions only.
Publications that are not in English will be excluded.
Stage 4: charting the data
Two reviewers will independently extract the data and vigilantly review the studies based on the data abstraction form (online supplementary appendix 3). We assume that studies identified for this review will include basic study information like: first author and year of publication and will include information about the HIT intervention and the methods used in the study. Following review of the primary study types to be included in the review, an appropriate quality-assessment standard shall be used to assess the quality of the included papers.
Stage 5: collating, summarising and reporting the results
The studies identified from this scoping review will be summarised and analysed using quantitative and qualitative methods. In terms of quantitative methods, we will report simple numerical counts of information such as: the total number of studies, types of primary prevention HIT interventions, descriptions of the study samples and regarding qualitative methods, we will conduct a narrative synthesis to provide an overview of the breadth of the literature and to identify gaps that may need further research. To address the three research questions of the review, we will analyse the data following three synthesis objectives: to identify the HITs that are used for primary prevention, to identify the primary prevention patient outcomes that are improved by the use of HITs and to map out the ways HITs are changing/improving primary prevention compared with standard/traditional methods. Table 4 displays each of the synthesis objectives of the review followed by the method, guide questions and outputs that will be used to achieve them.
Data analysis plan by the synthesis objectives and anticipated outputs
Patient and public involvement
Research interests identified and prioritised by members of the public in a workshop held at the European Scientific Institute in July 2017 were used to guide specification of this research.
Ethics and dissemination
The proposed scoping review has the potential to improve research and inform policy-makers, healthcare providers, clinicians and researchers on how HITs are used in preventive medicine. This scoping review could help advance research by showing the type of evidence and strategies available and by highlighting the need for further research in the field. The completed scoping review will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal to categorise HITs for their use in primary prevention.
Acknowledgments
We thank the medical librarians at Imperial College, Charing Cross campus for advising on search strategies and available resources. This work was supported by the Sir David Cooksey Fellowship in Healthcare Translation and the SENS Research Foundation.
References
Footnotes
Contributors AA and EM participated in the design and development of the protocol. AA and EM drafted the manuscript. AM, JC, DB and GW reviewed the second draft. AA and EM incorporated and addressed the feedback from the authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding This work was funded by EIT Health (Grant 18654).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Ethics approval Due to the use of publicly available, published data, this study will not require an ethical approval.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.