This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Digital Health Reviews (1318) mHealth for Symptom and Disease Monitoring, Chronic Disease Management (1424) Chronic Conditions (278) eHealth Service, Product, Resource Reviews (31) Mobile Health (mhealth) (2974)

Published on in Vol 26 (2024)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/53576, first published .
Current Implementation of Digital Health in Chronic Disease Management: Scoping Review

Current Implementation of Digital Health in Chronic Disease Management: Scoping Review

Current Implementation of Digital Health in Chronic Disease Management: Scoping Review

Authors of this article:

Candelyn Pong1 Author Orcid Image ;   Rachel Marjorie Wei Wen Tseng2, 3 Author Orcid Image ;   Yih Chung Tham2, 4, 5 Author Orcid Image ;   Elaine Lum1, 6 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations Metrics

    Review

    1Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    2Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore

    3Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    4Centre for Innovation and Precision Eye Health, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    5Department of Ophthalmology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    6Centre for Population Health Research and Implementation, SingHealth, Singapore, Singapore

    *these authors contributed equally

    Corresponding Author:

    Elaine Lum, PhD

    Health Services and Systems Research

    Duke-NUS Medical School

    National University of Singapore

    8 College Rd

    Singapore, 169857

    Singapore

    Phone: 65 66017213

    Email: elaine_lum@duke-nus.edu.sg


    Background: Approximately 1 in 3 adults live with multiple chronic diseases. Digital health is being harnessed to improve continuity of care and management of chronic diseases. However, meaningful uptake of digital health for chronic disease management remains low. It is unclear how these innovations have been implemented and evaluated.

    Objective: This scoping review aims to identify how digital health innovations for chronic disease management have been implemented and evaluated: what implementation frameworks, methods, and strategies were used; how successful these strategies were; key barriers and enablers to implementation; and lessons learned and recommendations shared by study authors.

    Methods: We used the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. Five databases were searched for studies published between January 2015 and March 2023: PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and IEEE Xplore. We included primary studies of any study design with any type of digital health innovations for chronic diseases that benefit patients, caregivers, or health care professionals. We extracted study characteristics; type of digital health innovation; implementation frameworks, strategies, and outcome measures used; barriers and enablers to implementation; lessons learned; and recommendations reported by study authors. We used established taxonomies to synthesize extracted data. Extracted barriers and enablers were grouped into categories for reporting. Descriptive statistics were used to consolidate extracted data.

    Results: A total of 252 studies were included, comprising mainly mobile health (107/252, 42.5%), eHealth (61/252, 24.2%), and telehealth (97/252, 38.5%), with some studies involving more than 1 innovation. Only 23 studies (23/252, 9.1%) reported using an implementation science theory, model, or framework; the most common were implementation theories, classic theories, and determinant frameworks, with 7 studies each. Of 252 studies, 144 (57.1%) used 2 to 5 implementation strategies. Frequently used strategies were “obtain and use patient or consumer feedback” (196/252, 77.8%); “audit and provide feedback” (106/252, 42.1%); and piloting before implementation or “stage implementation scale-up” (85/252, 33.7%). Commonly measured implementation outcomes were acceptability, feasibility, and adoption of the digital innovation. Of 252 studies, 247 studies (98%) did not measure service outcomes, while patient health outcomes were measured in 89 studies (35.3%). The main method used to assess outcomes was surveys (173/252, 68.7%), followed by interviews (95/252, 37.7%). Key barriers impacting implementation were data privacy concerns and patient preference for in-person consultations. Key enablers were training for health care workers and personalization of digital health features to patient needs.

    Conclusions: This review generated a summary of how digital health in chronic disease management is currently implemented and evaluated and serves as a useful resource for clinicians, researchers, health system managers, and policy makers planning real-world implementation. Future studies should investigate whether using implementation science frameworks, including how well they are used, would yield better outcomes compared to not using them.

    J Med Internet Res 2024;26:e53576

    doi:10.2196/53576

    Keywords

    digital health; telemedicine; chronic disease; noncommunicable disease; implementation science; evidence-based practice; mobile phone 


    Background

    Chronic diseases are among the biggest health threats, causing approximately 41 million deaths yearly [1]. Chronic disease management is especially difficult because these diseases do not occur in isolation; approximately 1 in 3 adults have multiple chronic conditions [2], and the probability of developing multiple comorbidities increases with age [3].

    Digital health is a rapidly growing industry that could potentially enhance health outcomes, with its growth accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The use of digital health enabled continuity of care during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially for chronic disease management, when in-person care was limited [4,5]. An estimated 20% or US $1.8 trillion of the world’s health care spending is wasteful, and digital health has the potential to lower health care spending by tackling this waste [6]. Despite its benefits, meaningful uptake of digital health for chronic disease management has been relatively low [7]. Some known barriers to adoption include lack of access and availability of digital health [8], poor user interface, suboptimal clinical integration, and lack of transparency about the datasets used for the development of digital health tools [9].

    The uptake of health care innovations can be addressed using implementation science. Implementation science is defined as the scientific investigation of ways to increase the adoption of evidence-based practices and research findings into routine clinical use [10]. It is underpinned by theoretical frameworks collectively known as implementation science theories, models, and frameworks (henceforth, for simplicity, implementation science frameworks). Nilsen’s taxonomy of implementation science frameworks shows 5 categories (Textbox 1): process models, determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories, and evaluation frameworks [11].

    Textbox 1. Descriptions and examples of theories, models, and frameworks used in implementation science.
    • Process models: These models are used to detail and facilitate the process of bridging the gap between research and routine clinical practice. Examples are the Knowledge To Action framework [12] and the Ottawa Model [13].
    • Determinant frameworks: These are frameworks that provide a list of factors for analysis that could affect implementation outcomes. Examples are Theoretical Domains Framework [14] and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research [15].
    • Classic theories: These are theories used to analyze the factors that shape implementation outcomes, usually drawn from other disciplines, such as psychology and organizational theory [11]. Examples are the Theory of Planned Behavior [16], Social Cognitive Theory [17], and Situated Change Theory [18].
    • Implementation theories: These are theories generated from implementation research to understand and address elements that shape implementation outcomes. An example is Normalization Process Theory [19].
    • Evaluation frameworks: These are frameworks to guide the evaluation of implementation efforts. Examples are the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) framework [20] and the framework for Outcomes in Implementation Research [21].

    Prospective use of implementation science frameworks can aid the development, implementation, and evaluation of digital health innovations [11]. Retrospective application of implementation science frameworks, although less common, can be used to understand an innovation’s success or failure [22]. Given the plethora of implementation science frameworks available, the choice of framework largely depends on the study aim. For example, if the study aims to prospectively explore potential barriers and enablers to the implementation of an innovation, a determinant framework, such as the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, would be appropriate. The advantage of underpinning real-world implementation efforts with an appropriate implementation science framework is the ability to generate reliable translation, spread, and scale-up for evidence-based innovations [23].

    Objectives

    Despite the usefulness of implementation science, there is a scarcity of reviews on the implementation [24] and evaluation of digital health innovations for chronic disease management in real-world or clinical settings. Most reviews are relatively narrow, focusing on a specific element of implementation such as barriers, a specific chronic disease, or a specific type of digital health innovation [25-28]. In light of the current knowledge gaps, this scoping review aimed to identify how digital health innovations for the management of chronic diseases have been implemented. Specifically, to understand what implementation frameworks, methods, and strategies were used; how successful these strategies were; what were the key barriers and enablers to implementation; what lessons were learned; and what recommendations were shared by the respective study authors. Findings will be useful to clinicians and researchers planning to implement digital health innovations.


    Definitions

    For the purposes of this scoping review, we defined digital health as the branch of study on the advancement and use of IT to enhance health [29]. This includes eHealth, mobile health (mHealth), telehealth, wearables, and artificial intelligence.

    eHealth refers to the provision of health care services with the support of information and communication technology (ICT), for example, computers and phones; mHealth is defined as the use of smart and portable or mobile wireless devices in health care; and telehealth is defined as the use of digital technologies to provide health services remotely [29,30]. Wearables are devices worn by individuals, usually to monitor personal health metrics and their environment [31]. Artificial intelligence in health care refers to the use of machine learning, including natural language processing and deep learning, to make predictions of health outcomes or support clinical decision-making [32].

    Search Strategy

    This study was carried out according to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews [33]. The protocol was published on Open Science Framework [34,35] and briefly detailed in this paper. We developed a search strategy comprising the following key concepts: digital health, implementation, and chronic diseases, and refined it using the PRESS (Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies) guidelines (Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1 [36-198]) [199]. The full search strategy is provided in Multimedia Appendix 1.

    We searched the following 5 databases, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and IEEE Xplore, for literature published between January 2015 and March 2023. We chose to start from 2015 as there was a steep escalation in the number of published studies on digital health innovations from 2016 onward [200].

    Eligibility Criteria

    We included primary studies of any study design reporting on the preimplementation or implementation of any type of digital health innovations for chronic diseases that benefits either patients, caregivers, or health care professionals directly, with or without the use of an implementation science framework.

    Studies that did not include implementation or were not reported in the English language, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, conference proceedings, short reports, study protocols, commentaries, and dissertations were excluded from this review.

    Selection of Studies

    Three researchers (CP, RMWWT, and EL) conducted title and abstract screening followed by full-text screening, with each study independently screened by 2 researchers. Conflicts at both stages of screening were resolved through discussion, and any unresolved conflicts were mediated by a third researcher. The reference lists of studies that partially met the inclusion criteria but were excluded because these were meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or study protocols were examined by 1 researcher (CP) to identify any additional relevant studies. Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation), a web-based collaboration platform for reviews, and Endnote (version 20; Clarivate Analytics) were used for screening and managing citations, respectively.

    Data Extraction and Data Analysis

    A standardized form was developed for data extraction using Google Forms (Google LLC). The following data were extracted: publication year, author, country of study, type of study, characteristics of the digital health innovations, definitions of digital health used by study authors, implementation frameworks used, implementation strategies, and outcome measures used to evaluate the implementation. We also extracted the key barriers and enablers for successful implementation, lessons learned, and recommendations shared by the respective study authors. How we operationalized data extraction is presented in Multimedia Appendix 1. For example, textual data points, such as “key barriers,” were summarized as “patients’ lack of motivation and time,” “increased workload for health care workers,” and so forth.

    The extraction form was piloted by 2 researchers (CP and RMWWT) using 5 included studies and subsequently refined. One reviewer (CP) completed data extraction for the remaining studies. Data extraction of a random 10% (25/252, 9.9%) of included articles was verified by a second researcher (EL) to ensure rigor and trustworthiness. Descriptive statistics were used to consolidate the extracted data in Excel (version 1808; Microsoft Corporation).

    We used the following taxonomies to inform our analysis and summary of extracted data: the categorization for countries and regions by the World Health Organization for the country of study [201]; Nilsen’s taxonomy for implementation theories, models, and frameworks [11]; Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy for implementation strategies [202]; and Proctor’s outcomes in implementation research [21]. Logic models and pathways were not considered an implementation science framework in this review.

    A Note About Outcomes

    Overview

    Outcomes were grouped into 3 categories, namely, implementation outcomes, service outcomes, and patient outcomes, following Proctor et al [21]. Implementation outcomes indicate the success (or otherwise) of implementing or embedding the digital health innovation. Service outcomes and patient outcomes indicate the effectiveness of digital health innovation in impacting service delivery or patient care and patient health or well-being, respectively. These 3 categories of outcomes are detailed in the Implementation Outcomes and Service Outcomes and Patient Outcomes sections.

    Implementation Outcomes

    Proctor’s outcomes for implementation research comprise 8 types of implementation outcomes, namely, acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability [21]. Acceptability is the impression among stakeholders that the specific innovation is agreeable, adoption is the initial desire to test or use a given innovation, and appropriateness is the perceived suitability of the innovation in a particular context. Cost refers to both the cost of the innovation and the cost of implementation. Feasibility is the extent to which an innovation can be effectively implemented in a specific context, and fidelity is the extent to which the innovation was implemented as intended. Penetration is the integration of the innovation into health care services, and sustainability is the degree to which an innovation and its ensuing benefits can be effectively maintained in a specific context [21].

    In Proctor’s outcomes for implementation research, various types of stakeholders are recognized; for example, administrators, payers, health care providers, and patients or consumers and their family members, to name a few [21]. Hence, an implementation outcome, such as “acceptability,” would hold different salience for each type of stakeholder [21]. For clarity, in this review, we chose to foreground the perspectives of target users for the implementation outcome “acceptability.”

    Hence, we can group the 8 outcomes proposed by Proctor et al [21] into the following three groups: (1) outcomes from a user perspective that are a function of innovation design (acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, and feasibility); (2) the implementation process (fidelity); and (3) outcomes that foreshadow embedment in routine practice from an organizational perspective (cost and cost-effectiveness, penetration, and sustainability).

    Service Outcomes and Patient Outcomes

    Service outcomes and patient outcomes indicate the effectiveness of digital health innovation in impacting service delivery or patient care and patient health or well-being, respectively. Examples of these outcomes include patient safety indicators, quantifiable health outcomes, patient satisfaction, health-related quality of life, patient empowerment, and patient knowledge.


    Search Yield

    The search generated 7970 studies. After removing duplicates, 96.16% (7664/7970) studies remained. After title and abstract screening and full-text screening of 7664 and 754 studies, respectively, 3.22% (247/7664) studies remained. Manual examination of reference lists of 5 study protocols and 9 meta-analyses and systematic reviews excluded during screening yielded 5 additional studies, bringing the total number of included studies to 252 (Figure 1). The list of included studies is provided in Multimedia Appendix 1.

    ‎
    Figure 1. PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Review) flow diagram.

    The most common reason for excluding full-text articles was that the innovation used was outside our scope and definition of digital health (257/507, 50.7%). Some examples include robot-assisted therapies and surgeries, minimally invasive and noninvasive medical devices, and online health education classes. Reasons for excluding full-text articles where digital health innovations were used include implementation outcomes not reported (189/507, 37.3%), disease type out of scope (22/507, 4.3%), conference proceedings or short report (16/507, 3.2%), systematic review or meta-analysis (9/507, 1.8%), study protocol (5/507, 1.0%), and dissertation (1/507, 0.2%). Other reasons for exclusion (6/507, 1.2%) were papers describing digital health implementation efforts in general and the creation of causal loop diagrams from published literature. Finally, records for which full text was not available upon reasonable search, for example, Google Scholar (Google LLC), university libraries, and contacting study authors via email or ResearchGate with no reply within 2 weeks, were excluded (2/507, 0.4%).

    Study Characteristics

    Key characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1. The majority were single-country studies (243/252, 96.4%). Most of the studies originated from the Region of the Americas (106/252, 42.1%), the European Region (89/252, 35.3%), and the Western Pacific Region (35/252, 13.9%). About half of the included studies were published between 2015 and 2019 before the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic (123/252, 48.8%), with the other half (129/252, 51.2%) published between 2020 and 2023, during and post–COVID-19 pandemic. The 3 most common types of chronic diseases managed were chronic respiratory diseases (64/252, 25.4%), cardiovascular diseases (33/252, 13.1%), and neurological disorders (29/252, 11.5%).

    The top 3 digital health innovations implemented were mHealth (107/252, 42.5%), telehealth (97/252, 38.5%), and eHealth (61/252, 24.2%). Most innovations were intended for patients (241/252, 95.6%). The top 3 study designs were mixed methods (57/252, 22.6%), qualitative description studies (54/252, 21.4%), and randomized controlled trials (47/252, 18.7%; Multimedia Appendix 1). The sample size varied widely, ranging from 11 to as large as 23,282 (Table 2). Of the 252 studies, 82 (32.5%) reported the study’s duration, which ranged from 0.5 to 106 months, with a mean of 18.1 (SD 16.8) months.

    Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.
    Study characteristicsPapers, n (%)
    Single-country studya243 (96.4)

    		Region of the Americas106 (42.1)

    		European Region89 (35.3)

    		Western Pacific Region34 (13.5)

    		South-East Asia Region9 (3.6)

    		Eastern Mediterranean Region3 (1.2)

    		African Region1 (0.4)

    		Unclassified geographical region: Taiwan1 (0.4)
    Multicountry studya9 (3.6)

    		European Region6 (2.4)

    		European Region and Region of the Americas1 (0.4)

    		European Region, Region of the Americas, and Western Pacific Region1 (0.4)

    		European Region and Western Pacific Region1 (0.4)
    Publication year

    		Before COVID-19 pandemic, 2015-2019123 (48.8)

    		After COVID-19 pandemic, 2020-2023129 (51.2)
    Type of chronic diseaseb

    		Chronic respiratory diseases64 (25.4)

    		Cardiovascular diseases33 (13.1)

    		Neurological disorders29 (11.5)

    		Diabetes26 (10.3)

    		Chronic diseases in general20 (7.9)

    		Mental illnesses20 (7.9)

    		Chronic musculoskeletal diseases19 (7.5)

    		Chronic kidney diseases14 (5.6)

    		Hypertension13 (5.2)

    		Cancer12 (4.8)

    		HIV or AIDS6 (2.4)

    		Rheumatic diseases6 (2.4)

    		Chronic hematologic disorders5 (2)

    		Chronic liver diseases5 (2)

    		Chronic skin diseases5 (2)

    		Chronic gastrointestinal diseases4 (1.6)

    		Obesity3 (1.2)

    		Eye diseases2 (1.2)

    		Ear diseases1 (0.4)
    Type of digital health innovationc

    		mHealthd107 (42.5)

    		Telehealth or telemedicine97 (38.5)

    		eHealth61 (24.2)

    		Wearables17 (6.7)

    		Big data or deep learning or machine learning4 (1.6)

    		Digital health in general1 (0.4)
    Target user of the innovatione

    		Patients241 (95.6)

    		Physicians58 (23)

    		Nurses46 (18.3)

    		Allied health professionals26 (10.3)

    		Caregivers25 (9.9)

    		Health care professionals in generalf10 (4)

    		Pharmacists5 (2)

    		Ancillary or support staff4 (1.6)

    		Midwives1 (0.4)
    Framework used

    		No framework216 (85.7)

    		Implementation science frameworksg,h23 (9.1)


    		Implementation theories7 (2.8)


    		Classic theories7 (2.8)


    		Determinant frameworks7 (2.8)


    		Evaluation frameworks3 (1.2)


    		Process models1 (0.4)

    		Other frameworks13 (5.2)


    		Health frameworks7 (2.8)


    		Technology adoption frameworks3 (1.2)


    		Frameworks developed by medical and health organizations2 (0.8)


    		Education frameworks1 (0.4)
    Number of implementation strategies

    		05 (2)

    		1103 (40.9)

    		2102 (40.5)

    		340 (15.9)

    		41 (0.4)

    		51 (0.4)
    Types of outcomei

    		Implementation outcomesj


    		Acceptability171 (67.9)


    		Feasibility38 (15.1)


    		Adoption32 (12.7)


    		Costk6 (2.4)


    		Fidelity4 (1.6)


    		Appropriateness3 (1.2)


    		Sustainability3 (1.2)


    		Penetration1 (0.4)

    		Patient outcomes


    		Health outcomes81 (32.1)


    		Satisfaction40 (15.9)


    		Quality of life24 (9.5)


    		Patient empowerment3 (1.2)


    		Patient knowledge2 (0.8)

    		Service outcomes


    		Safety5 (2)
    Assessment method used to evaluate outcomel

    		Surveys173 (68.7)

    		Interviews95 (37.7)

    		Observations39 (15.5)

    		Focus group discussions18 (7.1)

    		Think-aloud protocol7 (2.8)

    aCountries are categorized based on the World Health Organization’s country groupings [201].

    bPercentages do not add up to 100% as some studies addressed >1 chronic disease.

    cPercentages do not add up to 100% as some studies discussed >1 innovation.

    dmHealth: mobile health.

    ePercentages do not add up to 100% as some studies have >1 target user.

    fThe type of health care professionals is not specified.

    g Some studies used >1 implementation science framework.

    hAdapted from Nilsen taxonomy for implementation theories, models, and frameworks [11].

    iPercentages do not add up to 100% as some studies have >1 outcome.

    jAdapted from Proctor outcomes in implementation research [21].

    kMost studies only reported the cost of innovation; only Raeside et al [36] reported the total cost of implementation.

    lPercentages do not add up to 100% as some studies used >1 assessment method to evaluate the outcome.

    Table 2. Sample size of included studies.
    InnovationSample size, n
    Single innovation

    		Telehealth or telemedicine23,282

    		mHealtha9370

    		eHealth5751

    		Wearables232

    		Digital health in general32

    		Big data or deep learning or machine learning11
    Multiple innovations

    		eHealth and mHealth9783

    		eHealth, mHealth, and wearables457

    		mHealth and big data or deep learning or machine learning385

    		mHealth and wearables374

    		mHealth and telehealth or telemedicine198

    		eHealth and telehealth or telemedicine158

    		eHealth, mHealth, and big data or deep learning or machine learning120

    		Telehealth or telemedicine, mHealth, and wearables93

    		Telehealth or telemedicine, mHealth, eHealth, and big data or deep learning or machine learning60

    		Telehealth or telemedicine and wearables15

    amHealth: mobile health.

    Definition of Digital Health

    Of the 252 studies, only 24 (9.5%) included a definition of digital health. Of these 24 studies, a general definition of digital health was provided by 3 studies (12.5%): the use of ICTs for health care that includes both eHealth and mHealth [37] or as incorporating disruptive and medical technologies [38,39]. Definitions of a specific type of digital health innovation were provided by the remaining studies (21/24, 88%), of which 9 (43%) studies defined mHealth, 9 (43%) telehealth, 2 (10%) telemonitoring, and 1 (5%) defined eHealth. mHealth was defined as the use of mobile technology for services related to health care [40-48], and telehealth was defined as the use of ICT for internet-based provision of health care [49-57]. Of the 2 studies on telemonitoring, 1 (50%) described telemonitoring as an automated system [58], and the other (50%) defined it as a noninvasive patient-monitoring system [59] that uses ICT for the dissemination of patients’ clinical data from their homes to their respective health care providers [58,59]. The sole study with a definition on eHealth defined it as the use of ICT for health care [60].

    Type of Framework

    Frameworks used to implement digital health innovations are presented in Table 1. Most studies (216/252, 85.7%) did not indicate or specify the framework used to guide the implementation. Of those that did, there was a good mix of implementation science (23/252, 9.1%) and other frameworks used (13/252, 5.2%).

    Implementation models and theories used were the capability, opportunity, motivation, behavior (COM-B) model with the associated Behavior Change Wheel (4/252, 1.6%) and the Normalization Process Theory (3/252, 1.2%). Classic theories used were the self-determination theory (4/252, 1.6%), social cognitive theory (2/252, 0.8%), and Bandura’s self-efficacy theory (1/252, 0.4%). The determinant frameworks used were the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (4/252, 1.6%); Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment framework (1/252, 0.4%); the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework (1/252, 0.4%); and the Theoretical Domains Framework (1/252, 0.4%). The sole process framework used was the model by Grol and Wensing [203] (1/252, 0.4%), although the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment framework arguably straddles both determinant and process frameworks and could be included here.

    Implementation Strategies

    Most studies used 1 (103/252, 40.9%) or 2 (102/252, 40.5%) strategies to implement digital health (Table 1). Table 3 shows the implementation strategies used, mapped to the ERIC taxonomy [202,204]. The top 3 strategies used in terms of frequency were collecting feedback from target users (ERIC 46: obtain and use patients or consumers and family feedback; 196/252, 77.8%); reviewing clinical performance details and providing feedback (ERIC 5: audit and provide feedback; 106/252, 42.1%); and conducting pilot studies before implementation (ERIC 61: stage implementation scale-up; 85/252, 33.7%).

    Table 3. Implementation strategies (N=252).
    Implementation strategyPapers, n (%)a
    ERICb 46: obtain and use patients or consumers and family feedback196 (77.8)
    ERIC 5: audit and provide feedback106 (42.1)
    ERIC 61: stage implementation scale-up85 (33.7)
    ERIC 41: involve patients or consumers and family members19 (7.5)
    ERIC 4: assess for readiness and identify barriers and facilitators10 (4)
    ERIC 17: conduct local consensus discussions3 (1.2)
    ERIC 18: conduct local needs assessment3 (1.2)
    ERIC 56: purposefully re-examine the implementation3 (1.2)
    ERIC 19: conduct ongoing training2 (0.8)
    ERIC 35: identify and prepare champions2 (0.8)
    ERIC 55: provide ongoing consultation2 (0.8)
    ERIC 64: use advisory boards and workgroups2 (0.8)
    ERIC 65: use an implementation adviser2 (0.8)
    ERIC 69: use mass media2 (0.8)
    ERIC 15: conduct educational meetings1 (0.4)
    ERIC 26: develop and implement tools for quality monitoring1 (0.4)
    ERIC 27: develop and organize quality monitoring systems1 (0.4)
    ERIC 29: develop educational materials1 (0.4)
    ERIC 54: provide local technical assistance1 (0.4)
    ERIC 63: tailor strategies1 (0.4)
    ERIC 67: use data experts1 (0.4)

    aPercentages do not add up to 100% as some studies used >1 implementation strategy.

    bERIC refers to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy for implementation strategies.

    Outcomes in Implementation Research

    Overview

    The main assessment method used to evaluate outcomes was surveys (173/252, 68.7%; Table 1). Outcome measures used to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of digital health innovations were sorted into 3 categories, following Proctor et al [21] (Table 1 and Multimedia Appendix 1): implementation outcomes, service outcomes, and patient outcomes. While favorable implementation outcomes indicate successful implementation, the effectiveness of the digital health innovation is determined by service and patient outcomes. The 3 most common outcomes measured were acceptability (171/252, 67.9%), which is an implementation outcome, and 2 patient outcomes, namely health outcomes (81/252, 32.1%) and patient satisfaction (40/252, 15.9%). Service outcomes were largely not measured, with only a handful of studies (5/252, 2%) monitoring safety or adverse events.

    Implementation Outcomes

    Most studies that measured the acceptability, feasibility, and adoption of eHealth found it acceptable (38/39, 97%), feasible (7/10, 70%), and with a high rate of adoption (10/10, 100%). The sole study on eHealth that assessed fidelity reported that it was high among target users [61]. Similarly, most studies that evaluated the acceptability, feasibility, and adoption of mHealth found it to be acceptable (70/74, 95%), feasible (16/18, 89%), and with a high rate of adoption (14/15, 93%). However, the 2 studies that investigated the appropriateness of mHealth reported that it was rated low by target users [42,62].

    Likewise, most studies that assessed the acceptability and feasibility of telehealth found it acceptable (59/61, 97%) and feasible (13/14, 93%). The studies that measured the adoption of telehealth (4/5, 80%) reported that the adoption rate was high. All the studies that evaluated the fidelity of telehealth concluded that it was high among target users (3/3, 100%), and the 2 studies that analyzed the appropriateness of telehealth found it appropriate [56,58]. However, the sole study on telehealth that measured penetration observed that it varied widely across different health systems [63], and the 2 studies on telehealth that assessed sustainability received mixed reviews [63,64].

    As for wearables, most studies (7/8, 88%) that evaluated its acceptability found it acceptable. The sole study focusing on wearables that measured feasibility concluded that it was feasible [65], and the 2 studies that assessed the adoption reported that the adoption rate was high (Multimedia Appendix 1) [66,67].

    Service Outcomes

    Most studies (247/252, 98%) did not measure service outcomes, such as efficiency, safety, effectiveness, equity, patient-centeredness, and timeliness. Of the studies that did (5/252, 2%), study authors measured safety and concluded that there were no major adverse incidents caused by the innovation [68-71] or that the adverse events only occurred in a small number of users [72].

    Patient Outcomes

    Of 252 studies, 89 (35.3%) measured patients’ health or quality of life. Most of these studies (65/89, 73%) reported an improvement in at least 1 aspect of patients’ health or quality of life after the implementation of eHealth, mHealth, or telehealth, although 1 study (1%) saw a drop in patients’ health status but an improvement in quality of life. Of the 24 remaining studies, 22 observed no substantial difference (22/89, 25%), while 2 noticed a reduction in patients’ health status (2/89, 2%).

    Of 252 studies, 40 (15.9%) measured patient satisfaction with the innovation. Most of these studies (39/40, 98%) reported that patient satisfaction with eHealth, mHealth, and telehealth was generally high. Improvements in patient empowerment, specifically self-management and self-care were seen after the implementation of eHealth and mHealth innovations, respectively [73-75]. In addition, improvements in patient knowledge were seen after the implementation of eHealth [76,77]. None of the articles on wearables investigated patient outcomes (Multimedia Appendix 1).

    Barriers and Enablers to Implementation

    Of the 252 studies, 123 (48.8%) addressed barriers and enablers to implementation. Most of these studies elicited barriers and facilitators as part of the study aims (110/123, 89.4%), with the exception of 13 studies (10.6%) that reported barriers and facilitators as part of the findings or discussion. The barriers and enablers have been grouped into 4 categories: external factors, factors related to health care workers, patient-related factors, and factors pertinent to both patients and health care workers.

    The categories were generated based on the barriers and enablers identified in this review. Barriers and enablers related to recipients (target users) of the digital health innovations were categorized as “factors related to health care workers,” “patient-related factors,” or “factors pertinent to both patients and health care workers.” Barriers and enablers related to systems, policies, and infrastructure were categorized as “external factors.”

    Barriers

    Overview

    Common barriers affecting the implementation of eHealth, mHealth, and telehealth are presented in Figure 2, with specific barriers for the individual innovations detailed in Table 4.

    ‎
    Figure 2. Common barriers affecting the implementation of eHealth, mobile health (mHealth), and telehealth.
    Table 4. Specific barriers pertaining to individual innovations.
    InnovationExternal factorsFactors related to health care workersFactors related to patients and health care workersPatient-related factors
    Digital health in generala
    • Lack of resources to manage the data generated by the digital health tool
    • Poor quality of health data collected
    • Lack of strong evidence for health care workers to safely implement digital health
    		—b—
    eHealth
    • Lack of resources to manage privacy and safety concerns
    • Lack of access to eHealth tool
    • Cost
    • Initial skepticism pertaining to the innovation
    • Concerns about the eHealth tool’s reliability
    • Insufficient support and feedback provided by health care workers to patients
    • Lack of ease of use
    • Difficulties in loading and logging into the eHealth portal
    • Patients being reminded of being sick when using eHealth
    • Patients experiencing unexpected life events
    • Patients not being able to use their own personal device as the eHealth tool
    • Lack of training and support provided
    mHealthc
    • Lack of support from senior physicians at the initial stages of implementation
    • Lack of systematic assessment and reporting of patients’ health records or lack of integrated care for patients
    • Mismatch between the desire of the clinic director to implement mHealth and the buy-in from staff carrying out the implementation
    • Time constraints when mHealth was first implemented
    		—
    • High level of fatigue
    • Lack of access to smartphones
    • Presence of too many tasks to complete on the mHealth app
    • Preference or switching to nontraditional medicine
    Telehealth—
    • Difficulties assessing patients via telehealth
    • Lack of buy-in and engagement
    • Lack of communication among the different health care professionals
    • Lack of technical support
    • Lack of space and telehealth equipment
    • Lack of family support
    Wearables
    • Technical difficulties linking wearable to a web-based server
    		——
    • Discomfort from using wearables
    • Lack of trust
    • Poor rapport with clinicians

    aType of digital health innovation not specified.

    bNot applicable.

    cmHealth: mobile health.

    Common Barriers Affecting Implementation

    Data privacy emerged as the foremost common barrier among various digital health innovations [37,38,43,45,78-92]. Patient preference for in-person consultations [53,66,83,84,89,93-95] and their level of comfort with digital health or technology in general [66,96-99] were common barriers to the implementation of eHealth, mHealth, telehealth, and wearables. The lack of manpower [63,80,85,100-104] and the preference of health care workers for in-person consultations with patients [43,60,78,85,90,105-107] were shared barriers for eHealth, mHealth, and telehealth innovations. The lack of integration with electronic medical records [60,80,81,90,108-113] was a reported barrier for both eHealth and mHealth. Health care workers’ time constraints were an important barrier to the implementation of both mHealth and telehealth [100,104,114,115].

    Barriers Unique to Type of Technology

    Some barriers unique to eHealth included the lack of ease of use for both patients and health care workers [79,91] and the initial skepticism of health care workers about eHealth [81]. Barriers distinctive to mHealth were the lack of support from senior management at the initial phase of implementation [101] and patients’ lack of access to smartphones [40,96]. For telehealth, unique barriers included health care workers facing difficulties evaluating patients over the internet [104] and the lack of space and equipment for patients and health care workers to attend and conduct telehealth visits, respectively [63,83,98,104,105,115,116]. Barriers unique to wearables include the presence of discomfort after wearing the item [41] and patients’ lack of trust in the technology [65]. For the sole study that evaluated digital health in general, some unique barriers were the lack of resources to handle the information collected by digital health tools and the lack of solid evidence to implement digital health safely [37] (Table 4).

    Enablers

    Common enablers affecting the implementation of eHealth, mHealth, and telehealth are depicted in Figure 3, while specific enablers of each type of innovation are presented in Table 5.

    ‎
    Figure 3. Common enablers affecting the implementation of eHealth, mobile health (mHealth), and telehealth.
    Table 5. Specific enablers pertaining to individual innovations.
    InnovationExternal factorsFactors related to health care workersFactors related to patients and health care workersPatient-related factors
    Digital health in generala—b
    • High level of digital literacy
    		——
    eHealth—
    • Awareness of eHealth
    • Positive perception of eHealth
    • Perception of having control over patient management
    • Increased productivity
    • Presence of incentives
    		—
    • Ability to engage and use the innovation
    mHealthc——
    • mHealth app having a comprehensive set of features
    • Having a say in the development of mHealth
    • Presence of health care workers monitoring patients’ use of mHealth
    • Being of an older age
    • Familiarity with smartphone
    • High level of self-efficacy
    • Perception that the innovation is credible
    • Presence of reminders to use mHealth
    Telehealth
    • Presence of adequate funding needed for the implementation
    • Telehealth as a complement, not a replacement of in-person consultations
    • Presence of engagement with health care workers on telehealth
    • Perception that telehealth is credible
    • High confidence level with regard to using telehealth
    • Presence of administrative support
    		—
    • High confidence and trust in the health care system
    • Presence of a program champion
    • Presence of encouragement from health care workers to patients to adopt telehealth
    • Presence of flexibility to attend telehealth sessions at a preferred place and time
    • Presence of social support
    • Comfort with telehealth
    Wearables———
    • Being of a younger age
    • Innovation easily worn under clothing without snagging
    • Presence of severe symptoms

    aType of digital health innovation not specified.

    bNot applicable.

    cmHealth: mobile health.

    Common Enablers Affecting Implementation

    The common enablers between eHealth, mHealth, telehealth, and digital health in general were the presence of training for health care workers [37,45,60,78,80,100,101,117] and personalization of digital health features to patients’ needs [37,42,58,80,82,115,118-121,205]. The sole common enabler among eHealth, mHealth, telehealth, and wearables was the ease of use of the respective technologies [36,43,60,63,66,78,80,82,84,87,96,108,109,111,115,118,121,205-212]. With regard to eHealth, mHealth, and telehealth, some common enablers among them included a good relationship between the patient and the health care worker [79,104,118,205,213,214] and the availability of manpower to implement the innovation [98,101,215]. The presence of motivation to use the innovation was particular to both eHealth and mHealth [119,206]. The presence of education and training for patients was an enabler for both mHealth and telehealth [43,45,78,87,206]. Good communication between the implementation stakeholders was an enabler for both telehealth and eHealth [58,102,104,105,108,114,215].

    Enablers Unique to Type of Technology

    Enablers unique to eHealth included the ability of health care workers to evaluate more patients without an increase in time commitment [90,216] and the presence of incentives for health care workers, such as the provision of financial reimbursement and continuing medical education points [108]. Enablers distinctive to mHealth included patients’ familiarity with smartphones [217] and a high level of self-efficacy [216]. For telehealth, unique enablers included the presence of encouragement from health care workers to patients to use telehealth [98,114,218] and flexibility for patients to attend telehealth consultations at their convenience [83,85,93,105,114]. With regard to wearables, examples of unique enablers were the ability to wear the innovation easily under clothing and users being of a younger age group, as wearable designs often do not consider the requirements and needs of older adults [66]. For the sole study that evaluated digital health in general, a high level of digital literacy among health care workers was a specific enabler [37] (Table 5).

    Lessons Learned Shared by Study Authors

    Of the 252 studies, 62 (24.6%) specified lessons learned. Many patients are generally open to digital health [207], and the initial uptake is usually high [219]. However, health care workers often perceive it as an increase in workload [110]. For digital health innovations to be successful, it is important for them to be tailored to the patient’s needs [37,41,67,83,84,86,87, 89,111,115,119,121,212,220-227], to enhance the patient-provider relationship [90], and to complement physical appointments [57,105,222,228]. Effective communication between implementation stakeholders is required [87,98,229], and ongoing evaluation is needed to ensure that the uptake remains high [60]. In addition, the benefits of digital health need to be evident to target users [230].

    To increase the uptake of digital health, support from relevant authorities is needed [109], along with raising awareness of its benefits [45,78] and embedding it into existing workflows [60,90]. Other ways to increase uptake include the provision of resources required for implementation [98,225,231], the presence of technical support [37,60,225,231], and training for target users [60,213,225]. In addition, digital health innovations should be user-friendly [41,45,219,231,232], target users should be included in its development and implementation [60,66,110,221,233,234], and a transition stage should be included for target users to adapt to the innovation [60].

    Recommendations Shared by Study Authors

    Of the 252 studies, 122 (48.4%) studies shared recommendations. Study authors recommended conducting a study of a longer duration [37,51,230,235-240] or conducting a larger study [74,96,120,210,224,232,241-244] for future studies. Many authors also recommended using controlled trials for future studies [54,97,110,112,113,207,208, 211,230,231,245-256]. Some suggested larger or long-term trials [97,110,112,113,207,211,245,246,248,250,253,255-257], while others proposed clinical trials in general [258,259] or having a control group [46,56,96,260-263].

    Furthermore, some authors recommended future research in other contexts, such as different countries or cities [43,59,68,88], different health care systems [59,68] or settings [47,211,264-266], different stakeholder groups involved in the implementation [43,80,96,267], different demographics in terms of age [268] or socioeconomic status [222,269], more diverse demographics [89,91,104,107,110,232,243, 257,258,264,266,270], different illnesses [271-274], or severity of disease [99]. In contrast, other authors suggested focusing on patients with similar illness classification [242,275].

    Other proposals pertinent to implementation include using different implementation strategies [76], monitoring different outcomes [36,107,225,276], collecting outcomes more frequently [277], or understanding the association between different features of the innovation and their corresponding outcomes [55,278,279]. Other suggestions include personalizing the innovation to individual users [88,95,121,258,280], having more extensive user testing [115,273,281], or making relevant changes to current features of the innovation based on the research findings [213,219,241,282,283].

    Moreover, several authors recommended focusing on efficacy [43,45,49,70,217,247,256,284-287], validation [229], effectiveness [65,210,221,258,288-290], cost-effectiveness [45,96,115,247,281], clinical applicability [291], or usability of the innovation [292]. Other proposals include using a mixed methods approach for future studies [43,45,218,248,293] or qualitative research methods to understand target users’ experiences with digital health [42,43,45,59,230].


    Principal Findings

    This review bridges a critical gap in the deployment of digital health innovations for the management of chronic diseases by eliciting how such innovations have been implemented and evaluated to date. We conducted the review through the lens of implementation science to generate actionable findings for future real-world implementation of digital health innovations.

    First, >90% of the 252 studies included in this review did not report using an implementation science framework for planning, guiding, or evaluating the real-world deployment of digital health technologies, despite the availability of many suitable frameworks to guide implementation [11]. This reportedly low use of implementation science frameworks may be due to implementation science being an emerging field. Hence, awareness and the potential usefulness of such frameworks for implementing digital health technologies are not yet widespread. Of the studies that reported using an implementation science framework, implementation theories, classic theories, and determinant frameworks were the most frequently used. Implementation science frameworks developed specifically for the deployment of digital health technologies were rarely used; for example, only 3 studies used the Normalization Process Theory and none used the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability framework [294].

    Of 252 studies, only 23 (9.1%) leveraged an implementation science framework. Study authors used these frameworks to underpin qualitative data collection, data analysis, or interpretation of findings; to inform the design of behavior change and implementation strategies to enable successful deployment; and for the evaluation of implementation outcomes. Although most included studies (229/252, 90.9%) did not formally use implementation science frameworks to guide implementation, these studies have, nevertheless, addressed or incorporated some elements of these frameworks. For example, 48.8% (123/252) of the studies assessed barriers and enablers affecting implementation. The low use of implementation science frameworks represents missed opportunities to generate reliable translation and scale-up of evidence-based innovations through a deeper understanding of contextual influences and eliciting mechanisms of implementation, as well as productive theorizing of implementation research [23,295].

    Second, of the studies that measured implementation or patient outcomes, most (188/227, 82.8%) reported positive implementation or patient outcomes despite the low use of implementation science frameworks in the deployment of digital health innovations. Target users generally found digital health to be acceptable and feasible, and study authors reported high adoption. Only 6 (2.4%) of the 252 studies included appropriateness and sustainability as outcome measures to evaluate implementation, and the results were mixed. Of the studies that measured patients’ health outcomes or quality of life, 77% (64/83) reported improvements, with patients being generally satisfied with digital health. These outcomes were mainly assessed using surveys (173/252, 68.7%); this is unsurprising as surveys are commonly used in health services research [296]. Most surveys contained at least 1 validated scale to assess outcomes (103/173, 59.5%) or were created by study authors (85/173, 49.1%).

    Third, the most commonly used implementation strategies were evaluative and iterative strategies as per the ERIC taxonomy [202]; this is not surprising, given the relatively higher importance and feasibility of these strategies [202]. Studies focused on innovation development used a variety of co-design strategies with target users, such as patients and health care professionals. Strategies such as obtaining user feedback and conducting pilots before implementation were necessary, considering that most of the digital health innovations were in the early stages of real-world deployment.

    Comparison to Prior Work

    Overall, the findings from this review are similar to previous scoping reviews in emphasizing the usefulness of digital health innovations, and they are viewed positively by target users [297-299]. Willis et al [297] observed that many included studies found statistically significant improvements in implementation outcomes (eg, adoption and acceptability) and health care performance outcomes (eg, validated health measures), congruent with the findings of our review. Patel et al [298] highlighted that numerous studies indicated that many participants were willing to use digital health innovations, especially if they are personalized to target users’ needs and preferences, which is a key enabler found in our review. Likewise, Lim et al [299] argued that most participants found digital health innovations highly acceptable and perceived them to be convenient, user-friendly, and practical.

    Despite the above, many studies in this review indicated numerous barriers that could affect implementation. Notable barriers include concerns over data privacy [37,38,43,45,78-92] and patients’ preference for physical consultations [53,55,66,83,84,89,93-95]. While it remains to be seen whether the convenience and flexibility of accessing health care via digital modalities would trump patient preference for physical consultations, assuming the quality of care is not compromised, ensuring data privacy is nonnegotiable. Not being able to assure data privacy is arguably the most formidable barrier affecting successful implementation [300,301].

    In our review, two-thirds (171/252, 67.9%) of the included studies examined acceptability as an implementation outcome, followed by feasibility (38/252, 15.1%), and adoption (32/252, 12.7%). Other implementation outcomes, such as penetration, sustainability, appropriateness, fidelity, and cost, were infrequently reported (number of studies ranged between 1 and 6 studies). Similarly, a recent scoping review by Proctor et al [302] investigating the progress of implementation outcomes research found that 52.5% (210/400) of their included studies examined acceptability [302]. Fidelity was the next most commonly examined outcome (157/400, 39.3%), followed by feasibility (154/400, 38.5%), adoption (106/400, 26.5%), and appropriateness (87/400, 21.8%). Implementation outcomes such as penetration (64/400, 16%), sustainability (63/400, 15.8%), and cost (31/400, 7.8%) were relatively less frequently examined [302], albeit in higher proportions of included studies compared to our review. Our finding that service outcomes were rarely reported (5/252, 2%) contrasts with that reported in the scoping review by Proctor et al [302], where a small percentage (22/400, 5.5%) of included studies not only reported service outcomes but also examined the relationship between implementation outcomes and service outcomes.

    Limitations and Strengths

    There are several limitations to this review. First, the identification and classification of implementation strategies and outcomes for included studies were not without challenges, as studies used various terms to describe these constructs. To reduce errors and to ensure consistency in the interpretation of terms for the purposes of data extraction, we piloted the data extraction form and resolved discrepancies before actual extraction.

    Second, we were not able to judge how well implementation strategies were carried out, regardless of whether an implementation science framework was used or not, apart from documenting the outcomes reported by the study authors. We cannot rule out that in some included studies, the outcomes were suboptimal due to poorer execution of implementation strategies rather than the lack of an implementation science framework to underpin the work per se.

    Third, we did not assess the quality of reporting against the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) [303], as not all included studies explicitly claimed to be an implementation study. StaRI comprises a 27-item checklist spanning both the implementation strategy and the clinical, health care, or public health intervention (the innovation) being implemented. According to StaRI, study authors should describe the scientific background and explain their rationale for selecting the underpinning implementation theory, model, or framework and implementation strategies. Study authors should do the same for the innovation being implemented and include a description of the evidence of its effectiveness [303]. Adhering to StaRI would also require a description of how the “selected strategy is expected to achieve its effects”; for example, a logic model or pathway showing hypothesized mechanisms of action for how each implementation strategy is expected to bring about desired patient outcomes [303]. The logic model or pathway does not replace the use of an implementation theory, model, or framework to underpin the work of implementation.

    Fourth, we did not include preprints or unpublished literature, which might have affected our findings. Digital health is a rapidly growing field, and pioneering innovations may have yet to be published in peer-reviewed journals. However, preprints are more likely to capture the development and validation phases of digital health innovations rather than last-mile real-world implementation, which is the scope of this review.

    Strengths of this review include a comprehensive search strategy and broad inclusion criteria to ensure that we capture as many relevant studies as possible. The included studies are not limited to a particular geographical region or type of digital health innovation, thus allowing a representative overview to be generated. We categorized the findings on barriers and enablers to understand differences related to patients, health care workers, and external factors across different digital health innovations, which will be useful for planning and designing future implementation studies.

    Future Directions

    This scoping review generated a summary of how digital health in chronic disease management is currently implemented. The benefit of using implementation science frameworks was not unequivocal and was out of the scope of this review. Nevertheless, our findings established a basis for future studies to investigate whether using an implementation science framework (and how well it is used) compared to not using one would yield better or more consistent outcomes. In addition, we agree with Proctor et al [302] that future studies testing the relationships between implementation strategies and implementation, service, and patient outcomes are needed.

    The digital health innovation being implemented should not unduly burden target users, whether patients or health care providers. Investing in co-design with target users as early as practicable is a smart way to ensure that the innovation is fit for purpose and to pre-emptively identify user issues. However, as users and contexts continually evolve and change, acceptability of digital health innovation may change with time. Hence, the acceptability of the innovation should be assessed at several time points, and the findings should be used to inform iterative improvements in innovation design.

    The process of deployment is as important as the features of the innovation. Target users require adequate preparation and support throughout the implementation. It should be ensured that process measures and adverse events are monitored consistently and addressed. Planning for and monitoring sustainability should be a key outcome measure, given the not-insignificant investment of resources in digital health.

    Conclusions

    Digital health has changed how health care is viewed and managed; nonetheless, how it is implemented in real-world settings can be further optimized. This implementation science–guided scoping review generated a comprehensive summary of the various ways digital health innovations have been implemented and evaluated for chronic disease management. Findings serve as a useful resource for physicians, researchers, health system managers, and policy makers when designing the successful implementation of digital health innovations.

    Acknowledgments

    No funding was provided for this study.

    Authors' Contributions

    EL conceptualized and supervised the study. CP and EL constructed and refined the search strategy. CP, RMWWT, and EL were involved in the screening and development of the data extraction form. CP and RMWWT piloted the data extraction form. CP conducted data extraction for the remaining papers and conducted data analysis. CP and EL codrafted the manuscript. CP revised the draft with EL, and coauthors (RMWWT and YCT) provided further critical inputs to the manuscript. The authors have viewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Supplementary materials which include the PRESS (Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies) checklist, search strategies, data extraction, list of studies in the scoping review, types of study, and the outcome measures used to evaluate implementation success and effectiveness of the digital health innovation.

    DOCX File , 122 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    PRISMA-ScR Checklist.

    PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 84 KB
    1. Noncommunicable diseases. World Health Organization (WHO). 2022. URL: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases [accessed 2023-01-18]
    2. Foo KM, Sundram M, Legido-Quigley H. Facilitators and barriers of managing patients with multiple chronic conditions in the community: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. Feb 27, 2020;20(1):273. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Marengoni A, Angleman S, Melis R, Mangialasche F, Karp A, Garmen A, et al. Aging with multimorbidity: a systematic review of the literature. Ageing Res Rev. Sep 2011;10(4):430-439. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Seixas AA, Olaye IM, Wall SP, Dunn P. Optimizing healthcare through digital health and wellness solutions to meet the needs of patients with chronic disease during the COVID-19 era. Front Public Health. 2021;9:667654. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Gunasekeran DV, Tham YC, Ting DS, Tan GS, Wong TY. Digital health during COVID-19: lessons from operationalising new models of care in ophthalmology. Lancet Digit Health. Feb 2021;3(2):e124-e134. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Transforming healthcare: navigating digital health with a value-driven approach. World Economic Forum. URL: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Transforming_Healthcare_2024.pdf [accessed 2024-08-14]
    7. Shah N, Adusumalli S. Nudges and the meaningful adoption of digital health. Per Med. Nov 2020;17(6):429-433. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Peterson HB, Dube Q, Lawn JE, Haidar J, Bagenal J, Horton R, et al. Lancet Commission on Evidence-Based Implementation in Global Health. Achieving justice in implementation: the Lancet commission on evidence-based implementation in global health. Lancet. Jul 15, 2023;402(10397):168-170. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Aristidou A, Jena R, Topol EJ. Bridging the chasm between AI and clinical implementation. Lancet. Feb 12, 2022;399(10325):620. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Eccles MP, Mittman BS. Welcome to implementation science. Implement Sci. Feb 22, 2006;1(1):5. [CrossRef]
    11. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. Apr 21, 2015;10:53. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(1):13-24. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Logan JO, Graham ID. Toward a comprehensive interdisciplinary model of health care research use. Sci Commun. Dec 01, 1998;20(2):227-246. [CrossRef]
    14. Cane J, O'Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci. Apr 24, 2012;7:37. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. Aug 07, 2009;4:50. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. Dec 1991;50(2):179-211. [CrossRef]
    17. Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall; 1986.
    18. Orlikowski WJ. Improvising organizational transformation over time: a situated change perspective. Inf Syst J. Mar 1996;7(1):63-92. [CrossRef]
    19. May C, Finch T. Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: an outline of normalization process theory. Sociology. Jun 15, 2009;43(3):535-554. [CrossRef]
    20. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. Sep 1999;89(9):1322-1327. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. Mar 2011;38(2):65-76. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Hill JN, Guihan M, Hogan TP, Smith BM, LaVela SL, Weaver FM, et al. Use of the PARIHS framework for retrospective and prospective implementation evaluations. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. Apr 2017;14(2):99-107. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Damschroder LJ. Clarity out of chaos: use of theory in implementation research. Psychiatry Res. Jan 2020;283:112461. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Sharma M, Savage C, Nair M, Larsson I, Svedberg P, Nygren JM. Artificial intelligence applications in health care practice: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. Oct 05, 2022;24(10):e40238. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Shi C, Dumville JC, Juwale H, Moran C, Atkinson R. Evidence assessing the development, evaluation and implementation of digital health technologies in wound care: a rapid scoping review. J Tissue Viability. Nov 2022;31(4):567-574. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Whitelaw S, Pellegrini DM, Mamas MA, Cowie M, Van Spall HG. Barriers and facilitators of the uptake of digital health technology in cardiovascular care: a systematic scoping review. Eur Heart J Digit Health. Mar 2021;2(1):62-74. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Palacholla RS, Fischer N, Coleman A, Agboola S, Kirley K, Felsted J, et al. Provider- and patient-related barriers to and facilitators of digital health technology adoption for hypertension management: scoping review. JMIR Cardio. Mar 26, 2019;3(1):e11951. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Ross J, Stevenson F, Lau R, Murray E. Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update). Implement Sci. Oct 26, 2016;11(1):146. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Global strategy on digital health 2020-2025. World Health Organization (WHO). URL: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/documents/gs4dhdaa2a9f352b0445bafbc79ca799dce4d.pdf [accessed 2021-11-08]
    30. mHealth: use of appropriate digital technologies for public health. World Health Organization (WHO). 2018. URL: https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/wha71/a71_20-en.pdf [accessed 2021-11-08]
    31. Brancati MC, Curtarelli M, Riso S, Baiocco S. How digital technology is reshaping the art of management. European Commission. 2022. URL: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC130808 [accessed 2024-10-15]
    32. Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health: WHO guidance. World Health Organization (WHO). 2021. URL: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240029200 [accessed 2023-03-25]
    33. Peters MD, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Scoping reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Adelaide, Australia. Joanna Briggs Institute; 2020.
    34. There’s a better way to manage your research. Open Science Framework. URL: https://osf.io/ [accessed 2023-01-18]
    35. Implementation of digital health innovations for chronic disease management: A scoping review protocol. Open Science Framework. URL: https://osf.io/a846w/ [accessed 2024-06-04]
    36. Raeside R, Singleton AC, Todd A, Partridge SR, Hyun KK, Kulas H, et al. Lung support service: implementation of a nationwide text message support program for people with chronic respiratory disease during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Dec 19, 2022;19(24):17073. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Slevin P, Kessie T, Cullen J, Butler MW, Donnelly SC, Caulfield B. Exploring the barriers and facilitators for the use of digital health technologies for the management of COPD: a qualitative study of clinician perceptions. QJM. Mar 01, 2020;113(3):163-172. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Tran C, Dicker A, Leiby B, Gressen E, Williams N, Jim H. Utilizing digital health to collect electronic patient-reported outcomes in prostate cancer: single-arm pilot trial. J Med Internet Res. Mar 25, 2020;22(3):e12689. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Kvedarienė V, Biliute G, Didziokaitė G, Kavaliukaite L, Savonyte A, Rudzikaite-Fergize G, et al. Mobile health app for monitoring allergic rhinitis and asthma in real life in Lithuanian MASK-air users. Clin Transl Allergy. Sep 2022;12(9):e12192. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Nahar P, Kannuri NK, Mikkilineni S, Murthy GV, Phillimore P. mHealth and the management of chronic conditions in rural areas: a note of caution from southern India. Anthropol Med. Apr 2017;24(1):1-16. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Bentley CL, Powell L, Potter S, Parker J, Mountain GA, Bartlett YK, et al. The use of a smartphone app and an activity tracker to promote physical activity in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: randomized controlled feasibility study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jun 03, 2020;8(6):e16203. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Kettlewell J, Phillips J, Radford K, dasNair R. Informing evaluation of a smartphone application for people with acquired brain injury: a stakeholder engagement study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. May 30, 2018;18(1):33. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Alwashmi MF, Fitzpatrick B, Davis E, Farrell J, Gamble JM, Hawboldt J. Features of a mobile health intervention to manage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a qualitative study. Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2020;14:1753466620951044. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Song T, Liu F, Deng N, Qian S, Cui T, Guan Y, et al. A comprehensive 6A framework for improving patient self-management of hypertension using mHealth services: qualitative thematic analysis. J Med Internet Res. Jun 21, 2021;23(6):e25522. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Alwashmi MF, Fitzpatrick B, Farrell J, Gamble JM, Davis E, Nguyen HV, et al. Perceptions of patients regarding mobile health interventions for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: mixed methods study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jul 23, 2020;8(7):e17409. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Racioppi A, Dalton T, Ramalingam S, Romero K, Ren Y, Bohannon L, et al. Assessing the feasibility of a novel mHealth app in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. Transplant Cell Ther. Feb 2021;27(2):181.e1-181.e9. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Rodriguez Hermosa JL, Fuster Gomila A, Puente Maestu L, Amado Diago CA, Callejas González FJ, Malo De Molina Ruiz R, et al. Compliance and utility of a smartphone app for the detection of exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: cohort study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Mar 19, 2020;8(3):e15699. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. O'Connor SR, Treanor C, Ward E, Wickens RA, O'Connell A, Culliford LA, et al. Monarch Study Group. Patient acceptability of home monitoring for neovascular age-related macular degeneration reactivation: a qualitative study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Oct 21, 2022;19(20):13714. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Al Rajeh A, Steiner MC, Aldabayan Y, Aldhahir A, Pickett E, Quaderi S, et al. Use, utility and methods of telehealth for patients with COPD in England and Wales: a healthcare provider survey. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2019;6(1):e000345. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Nair PP, Aghoram R, Thomas B, Bharadwaj B, Chinnakali P. Video teleconsultation services for persons with epilepsy during COVID-19 pandemic: an exploratory study from public tertiary care hospital in Southern India on feasibility, satisfaction, and effectiveness. Epilepsy Behav. Apr 2021;117:107863. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. D'Haeseleer M, Eelen P, Sadeghi N, D'Hooghe MB, Van Schependom J, Nagels G. Feasibility of real time internet-based teleconsultation in patients with multiple sclerosis: interventional pilot study. J Med Internet Res. Aug 13, 2020;22(8):e18178. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Vijayasundaram S, Karthikeyan P, Mehta SD. Proficiency of virtual follow-up amongst tinnitus patients who underwent intratympanic steroid therapy amidst COVID 19 pandemic. Am J Otolaryngol. 2020;41(6):102680. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    53. Gordon HS, Solanki P, Bokhour BG, Gopal RK. "I'm not feeling like I’m part of the conversation" patients' perspectives on communicating in clinical video telehealth visits. J Gen Intern Med. Jun 2020;35(6):1751-1758. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Kao DP, Lindenfeld J, Macaulay D, Birnbaum HG, Jarvis JL, Desai US, et al. Impact of a telehealth and care management program on all-cause mortality and healthcare utilization in patients with heart failure. Telemed J E Health. Jan 2016;22(1):2-11. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Dhakal R, Baniya M, Solomon RM, Rana C, Ghimire P, Hariharan R, et al. TEleRehabilitation Nepal (TERN) for people with spinal cord injury and acquired brain injury: a feasibility study. Rehabil Process Outcome. 2022;11:11795727221126070. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Fritz JM, Minick KI, Brennan GP, McGee T, Lane E, Skolasky RL, et al. Outcomes of telehealth physical therapy provided using real-time, videoconferencing for patients with chronic low back pain: a longitudinal observational study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Oct 2022;103(10):1924-1934. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Kumar A, Lall N, Pathak A, Joshi D, Mishra VN, Chaurasia RN, et al. A questionnaire-based survey of acceptability and satisfaction of virtual neurology clinic during COVID-19 lockdown: a preliminary study. Acta Neurol Belg. Oct 2022;122(5):1297-1304. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Li J, Varnfield M, Jayasena R, Celler B. Home telemonitoring for chronic disease management: perceptions of users and factors influencing adoption. Health Informatics J. 2021;27(1):1460458221997893. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    59. Jaana M, Sherrard H, Paré G. A prospective evaluation of telemonitoring use by seniors with chronic heart failure: adoption, self-care, and empowerment. Health Informatics J. Dec 2019;25(4):1800-1814. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    60. van den Wijngaart LS, Geense WW, Boehmer AL, Brouwer ML, Hugen CA, van Ewijk BE, et al. Barriers and facilitators when implementing web-based disease monitoring and management as a substitution for regular outpatient care in pediatric asthma: qualitative survey study. J Med Internet Res. Oct 30, 2018;20(10):e284. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    61. Peiris D, Praveen D, Mogulluru K, Ameer MA, Raghu A, Li Q, et al. SMARThealth India: a stepped-wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial of a community health worker managed mobile health intervention for people assessed at high cardiovascular disease risk in rural India. PLoS One. 2019;14(3):e0213708. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Najm A, Lempp H, Gossec L, Berenbaum F, Nikiphorou E. Needs, experiences, and views of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases on self-management mobile health apps: mixed methods study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Apr 20, 2020;8(4):e14351. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    63. Bauer MS, Krawczyk L, Tuozzo K, Frigand C, Holmes S, Miller CJ, et al. Implementing and sustaining team-based telecare for bipolar disorder: lessons learned from a model-guided, mixed methods analysis. Telemed J E Health. Jan 2018;24(1):45-53. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    64. Brouwers RW, Kemps HM, Herkert C, Peek N, Kraal JJ. A 12-week cardiac telerehabilitation programme does not prevent relapse of physical activity levels: long-term results of the FIT@Home trial. Eur J Prev Cardiol. May 25, 2022;29(7):e255-e257. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. Shin S, Yeom C, Shin C, Shin JH, Jeong JH, Shin JU, et al. Activity monitoring using a mHealth device and correlations with psychopathology in patients with chronic schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. Dec 30, 2016;246:712-718. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. AlMahadin G, Lotfi A, Zysk E, Siena FL, Carthy MM, Breedon P. Parkinson's disease: current assessment methods and wearable devices for evaluation of movement disorder motor symptoms - a patient and healthcare professional perspective. BMC Neurol. Nov 18, 2020;20(1):419. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. Fisher JM, Hammerla NY, Rochester L, Andras P, Walker RW. Body-worn sensors in Parkinson’s disease: evaluating their acceptability to patients. Telemed J E Health. Jan 2016;22(1):63-69. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    68. Alwakeel AJ, Sicondolfo A, Robitaille C, Bourbeau J, Saad N. The accessibility, feasibility, and safety of a standardized community-based tele-pulmonary rehab program for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a 3-year real-world prospective study. Ann Am Thorac Soc. Jan 2022;19(1):39-47. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    69. Piotrowicz E, Pencina MJ, Opolski G, Zareba W, Banach M, Kowalik I, et al. Effects of a 9-week hybrid comprehensive telerehabilitation program on long-term outcomes in patients with heart failure: the telerehabilitation in heart failure patients (TELEREH-HF) randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. Mar 01, 2020;5(3):300-308. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    70. Seo NJ, Enders LR, Fortune A, Cain S, Vatinno AA, Schuster E, et al. Phase I safety trial: extended daily peripheral sensory stimulation using a wrist-worn vibrator in stroke survivors. Transl Stroke Res. Apr 2020;11(2):204-213. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    71. Yeh CH, Kawi J, Ni A, Christo P. Evaluating auricular point acupressure for chronic low back pain self-management using technology: a feasibility study. Pain Manag Nurs. Jun 2022;23(3):301-310. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    72. Sulkowski M, Luetkemeyer AF, Wyles DL, Martorell C, Muir A, Weisberg I, et al. Impact of a digital medicine programme on hepatitis C treatment adherence and efficacy in adults at high risk for non-adherence. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. Jun 2020;51(12):1384-1396. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    73. Jongen PJ, Ter Veen G, Lemmens W, Donders R, van Noort E, Zeinstra E. The interactive web-based program MSmonitor for self-management and multidisciplinary care in persons with multiple sclerosis: quasi-experimental study of short-term effects on patient empowerment. J Med Internet Res. Mar 09, 2020;22(3):e14297. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    74. Fortuna KL, Myers AL, Ferron J, Kadakia A, Bianco C, Bruce ML, et al. Assessing a digital peer support self-management intervention for adults with serious mental illness: feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness. J Ment Health. Dec 2022;31(6):833-841. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    75. Park SK, Bang CH, Lee SH. Evaluating the effect of a smartphone app-based self-management program for people with COPD: a randomized controlled trial. Appl Nurs Res. Apr 2020;52:151231. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    76. Palermo TM, de la Vega R, Murray C, Law E, Zhou C. A digital health psychological intervention (WebMAP Mobile) for children and adolescents with chronic pain: results of a hybrid effectiveness-implementation stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial. Pain. Dec 2020;161(12):2763-2774. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    77. Patzer RE, McPherson L, Basu M, Mohan S, Wolf M, Chiles M, et al. Effect of the iChoose kidney decision aid in improving knowledge about treatment options among transplant candidates: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Transplant. Aug 2018;18(8):1954-1965. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    78. Alwashmi MF, Fitzpatrick B, Davis E, Gamble J, Farrell J, Hawboldt J. Perceptions of health care providers regarding a mobile health intervention to manage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: qualitative study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jun 10, 2019;7(6):e13950. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    79. Ariens LF, Schussler-Raymakers FM, Frima C, Flinterman A, Hamminga E, Arents BW, et al. Barriers and facilitators to eHealth use in daily practice: perspectives of patients and professionals in dermatology. J Med Internet Res. Sep 05, 2017;19(9):e300. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    80. Cohn WF, Canan CE, Knight S, Waldman AL, Dillingham R, Ingersoll K, et al. An implementation strategy to expand mobile health use in HIV care settings: rapid evaluation study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Apr 28, 2021;9(4):e19163. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    81. Gómez-Restrepo C, Cepeda M, Torrey W, Castro S, Uribe-Restrepo JM, Suárez-Obando F, et al. The DIADA project: a technology-based model of care for depression and risky alcohol use in primary care centres in Colombia. Rev Colomb Psiquiatr (Engl Ed). Jul 2021;50 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):4-12. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    82. Haynes SC, Kim KK. A mobile system for the improvement of heart failure management: evaluation of a prototype. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2017;2017:839-848. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    83. Jansen-Kosterink S, Dekker-van Weering M, van Velsen L. Patient acceptance of a telemedicine service for rehabilitation care: a focus group study. Int J Med Inform. May 2019;125:22-29. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    84. Jiang Y, Sun P, Chen Z, Guo J, Wang S, Liu F, et al. Patients' and healthcare providers' perceptions and experiences of telehealth use and online health information use in chronic disease management for older patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a qualitative study. BMC Geriatr. Jan 03, 2022;22(1):9. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    85. Jordan DN, Jessen CM, Ferucci ED. Views of patients and providers on the use of telemedicine for chronic disease specialty care in the Alaska native population. Telemed J E Health. Jan 2021;27(1):82-89. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    86. Kondylakis H, Bucur A, Crico C, Dong F, Graf N, Hoffman S, et al. Patient empowerment for cancer patients through a novel ICT infrastructure. J Biomed Inform. Jan 2020;101:103342. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    87. Lee JY, Chan CK, Chua SS, Paraidathathu T, Lee KK, Tan CS, et al. Using telemedicine to support care for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a qualitative analysis of patients' perspectives. BMJ Open. Oct 22, 2019;9(10):e026575. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    88. Schneider T, Panzera AD, Martinasek M, McDermott R, Couluris M, Lindenberger J, et al. Physicians' perceptions of mobile technology for enhancing asthma care for youth. J Child Health Care. Jun 2016;20(2):153-163. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    89. Son YJ, Oh S, Kim EY. Patients' needs and perspectives for using mobile phone interventions to improve heart failure self-care: a qualitative study. J Adv Nurs. Sep 2020;76(9):2380-2390. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    90. Taylor S, Allsop MJ, Bekker HL, Bennett MI, Bewick BM. Identifying professionals' needs in integrating electronic pain monitoring in community palliative care services: an interview study. Palliat Med. Jul 2017;31(7):661-670. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    91. Wakefield BJ, Alexander G, Dohrmann M, Richardson J. Design and evaluation of a web-based symptom monitoring tool for heart failure. Comput Inform Nurs. May 2017;35(5):248-254. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    92. Wright S, Thompson N, Yadrich D, Bruce A, Bonar JR, Spaulding R, et al. Using telehealth to assess depression and suicide ideation and provide mental health interventions to groups of chronically ill adolescents and young adults. Res Nurs Health. Feb 2021;44(1):129-137. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    93. Barenfeld E, Fuller JM, Wallström S, Fors A, Ali L, Ekman I. Meaningful use of a digital platform and structured telephone support to facilitate remote person-centred care - a mixed-method study on patient perspectives. BMC Health Serv Res. Apr 04, 2022;22(1):442. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    94. Scriven H, Doherty DP, Ward EC. Evaluation of a multisite telehealth group model for persistent pain management for rural/remote participants. Rural Remote Health. Mar 2019;19(1):4710. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    95. Wannheden C, Stenfors T, Stenling A, von Thiele Schwarz U. Satisfied or frustrated? A qualitative analysis of need satisfying and need frustrating experiences of engaging with digital health technology in chronic care. Front Public Health. 2020;8:623773. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    96. Barakat-Johnson M, Kita B, Jones A, Burger M, Airey D, Stephenson J, et al. The viability and acceptability of a virtual wound care command centre in Australia. Int Wound J. Nov 2022;19(7):1769-1785. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    97. Jakobsen AS, Laursen LC, Rydahl-Hansen S, Østergaard B, Gerds TA, Emme C, et al. Home-based telehealth hospitalization for exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: findings from "the virtual hospital" trial. Telemed J E Health. May 2015;21(5):364-373. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    98. Martinez RN, Hogan TP, Balbale S, Lones K, Goldstein B, Woo C, et al. Sociotechnical perspective on implementing clinical video telehealth for veterans with spinal cord injuries and disorders. Telemed J E Health. Jul 2017;23(7):567-576. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    99. Singh G, Nimmon L, Sawatzky B, Ben Mortenson W. Barriers and facilitators to eHealth technology use among community-dwelling individuals with spinal cord injury: a qualitative study. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2022;28(2):196-204. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    100. Diez-Canseco F, Toyama M, Ipince A, Perez-Leon S, Cavero V, Araya R, et al. Integration of a technology-based mental health screening program into routine practices of primary health care services in Peru (the Allillanchu Project): development and implementation. J Med Internet Res. Mar 15, 2018;20(3):e100. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    101. Jindal D, Roy A, Ajay VS, Yadav SK, Prabhakaran D, Tandon N. Strategies for stakeholder engagement and uptake of new intervention: experience from state-wide implementation of mHealth technology for NCD care in Tripura, India. Glob Heart. Jun 2019;14(2):165-172. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    102. Johnson EE, MacGeorge C, King KL, Andrews AL, Teufel RJ, Kruis R, et al. Facilitators and barriers to implementation of school-based telehealth asthma care: program champion perspectives. Acad Pediatr. 2021;21(7):1262-1272. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    103. Lapão LV, Peyroteo M, Maia M, Seixas J, Gregório J, Mira da Silva M, et al. Implementation of digital monitoring services during the COVID-19 pandemic for patients with chronic diseases: design science approach. J Med Internet Res. Aug 26, 2021;23(8):e24181. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    104. Martinez RN, Hogan TP, Lones K, Balbale S, Scholten J, Bidelspach D, et al. Evaluation and treatment of mild traumatic brain injury through the implementation of clinical video telehealth: provider perspectives from the Veterans Health Administration. PM R. Mar 2017;9(3):231-240. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    105. Damhus CS, Emme C, Hansen H. Barriers and enablers of COPD telerehabilitation - a frontline staff perspective. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2018;13:2473-2482. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    106. Hanley J, Fairbrother P, McCloughan L, Pagliari C, Paterson M, Pinnock H, et al. Qualitative study of telemonitoring of blood glucose and blood pressure in type 2 diabetes. BMJ Open. Dec 23, 2015;5(12):e008896. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    107. Wali S, Guessi Margarido M, Shah A, Ware P, McDonald M, O'Sullivan M, et al. Expanding telemonitoring in a virtual world: a case study of the expansion of a heart failure telemonitoring program during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Med Internet Res. Jan 22, 2021;23(1):e26165. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    108. Bello AK, Molzahn AE, Girard LP, Osman MA, Okpechi IG, Glassford J, et al. Patient and provider perspectives on the design and implementation of an electronic consultation system for kidney care delivery in Canada: a focus group study. BMJ Open. Mar 02, 2017;7(3):e014784. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    109. de Batlle J, Massip M, Vargiu E, Nadal N, Fuentes A, Ortega Bravo M, et al. CONNECARE-Lleida Group. Implementing mobile health-enabled integrated care for complex chronic patients: patients and professionals' acceptability study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Nov 20, 2020;8(11):e22136. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    110. Kooij L, Vos PJ, Dijkstra A, van Harten WH. Effectiveness of a mobile health and self-management app for high-risk patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in daily clinical practice: mixed methods evaluation study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Feb 04, 2021;9(2):e21977. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    111. Lin JL, Huber B, Amir O, Gehrmann S, Ramirez KS, Ochoa KM, et al. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of family-centered technology in complex care: feasibility study. J Med Internet Res. Aug 23, 2022;24(8):e30902. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    112. Ong SW, Jassal SV, Miller JA, Porter EC, Cafazzo JA, Seto E, et al. Integrating a smartphone-based self-management system into usual care of advanced CKD. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. Jun 06, 2016;11(6):1054-1062. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    113. Wei KS, Ibrahim NE, Kumar AA, Jena S, Chew V, Depa M, et al. Habits heart app for patient engagement in heart failure management: pilot feasibility randomized trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jan 20, 2021;9(1):e19465. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    114. Liu Y, Zupan NJ, Swearingen R, Jacobson N, Carlson JN, Mahoney JE, et al. Identification of barriers, facilitators and system-based implementation strategies to increase teleophthalmology use for diabetic eye screening in a rural US primary care clinic: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. Feb 18, 2019;9(2):e022594. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    115. Walsh DM, Moran K, Cornelissen V, Buys R, Cornelis N, Woods C. Electronic health physical activity behavior change intervention to self-manage cardiovascular disease: qualitative exploration of patient and health professional requirements. J Med Internet Res. May 08, 2018;20(5):e163. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    116. Kayser MZ, Valtin C, Greer M, Karow B, Fuge J, Gottlieb J. Video consultation during the COVID-19 pandemic: a single center's experience with lung transplant recipients. Telemed J E Health. Jul 2021;27(7):807-815. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    117. Rothgangel A, Braun S, Smeets R, Beurskens A. Feasibility of a traditional and teletreatment approach to mirror therapy in patients with phantom limb pain: a process evaluation performed alongside a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. Oct 2019;33(10):1649-1660. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    118. Doyle J, Murphy E, Gavin S, Pascale A, Deparis S, Tommasi P, et al. A digital platform to support self-management of multiple chronic conditions (ProACT): findings in relation to engagement during a one-year proof-of-concept trial. J Med Internet Res. Dec 15, 2021;23(12):e22672. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    119. Jonassaint CR, Kang C, Prussien KV, Yarboi J, Sanger MS, Wilson JD, et al. Feasibility of implementing mobile technology-delivered mental health treatment in routine adult sickle cell disease care. Transl Behav Med. Feb 03, 2020;10(1):58-67. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    120. Lalloo C, Nishat F, Zempsky W, Bakshi N, Badawy S, Ko YJ, et al. Characterizing user engagement with a digital intervention for pain self-management among youth with sickle cell disease and their caregivers: subanalysis of a randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. Aug 30, 2022;24(8):e40096. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    121. Monteiro-Guerra F, Signorelli GR, Rivera-Romero O, Dorronzoro-Zubiete E, Caulfield B. Breast cancer survivors' perspectives on motivational and personalization strategies in mobile app-based physical activity coaching interventions: qualitative study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Sep 21, 2020;8(9):e18867. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    122. Adeagbo O, Herbst C, Blandford A, McKendry R, Estcourt C, Seeley J, et al. Exploring people's candidacy for mobile health-supported HIV testing and care services in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. Nov 18, 2019;21(11):e15681. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    123. Ahonle ZJ, Kreider CM, Hale-Gallardo J, Castaneda G, Findley K, Ottomanelli L, et al. Implementation and use of video tele-technologies in delivery of individualized community-based vocational rehabilitation services to rural veterans. J Vocat Rehabil. Sep 07, 2021;55(2):227-233. [CrossRef]
    124. Ammenwerth E, Woess S, Baumgartner C, Fetz B, van der Heidt A, Kastner P, et al. Evaluation of an integrated telemonitoring surveillance system in patients with coronary heart disease. Methods Inf Med. 2015;54(5):388-397. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    125. Amparo F, Dana R. Web-based longitudinal remote assessment of dry eye symptoms. Ocul Surf. Apr 2018;16(2):249-253. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    126. Andersen TO, Langstrup H, Lomborg S. Experiences with wearable activity data during self-care by chronic heart patients: qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. Jul 20, 2020;22(7):e15873. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    127. Anderson LM, Leonard S, Jonassaint J, Lunyera J, Bonner M, Shah N. Mobile health intervention for youth with sickle cell disease: impact on adherence, disease knowledge, and quality of life. Pediatr Blood Cancer. Aug 2018;65(8):e27081. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    128. Anglada-Martínez H, Martin-Conde M, Rovira-Illamola M, Sotoca-Momblona JM, Sequeira E, Aragunde V, et al. Feasibility and preliminary outcomes of a web and smartphone-based medication self-management platform for chronically ill patients. J Med Syst. Apr 2016;40(4):99. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    129. Ben-Zeev D, Brian RM, Jonathan G, Razzano L, Pashka N, Carpenter-Song E, et al. Mobile health (mHealth) versus clinic-based group intervention for people with serious mental illness: a randomized controlled trial. Psychiatr Serv. Sep 01, 2018;69(9):978-985. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    130. Bender C, Hangaard S, Kronborg T, Hejlesen OK, Secher PH. Preliminary qualitative evaluation of patient-related perspectives related to the implementation of a predictive algorithm in a telehealth system for COPD. Stud Health Technol Inform. May 27, 2021;281:545-549. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    131. Benzo RP, Kramer KM, Hoult JP, Anderson PM, Begue IM, Seifert SJ. Development and feasibility of a home pulmonary rehabilitation program with health coaching. Respir Care. Feb 2018;63(2):131-140. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    132. Bhatia A, Kara J, Janmohamed T, Prabhu A, Lebovic G, Katz J, et al. User engagement and clinical impact of the manage my pain app in patients with chronic pain: a real-world, multi-site trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Mar 04, 2021;9(3):e26528. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    133. Bonacini M, Kim Y, Pitney C, McKoin L, Tran M, Landis C. Wirelessly observed therapy to optimize adherence and target interventions for oral Hepatitis C treatment: observational pilot study. J Med Internet Res. Feb 24, 2020;22(2):e15532. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    134. Botros A, Schütz N, Camenzind M, Urwyler P, Bolliger D, Vanbellingen T, et al. Long-term home-monitoring sensor technology in patients with Parkinson's disease-acceptance and adherence. Sensors (Basel). Nov 26, 2019;19(23):5169. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    135. Bruggeman-Everts FZ, Wolvers MD, van de Schoot R, Vollenbroek-Hutten MM, Van der Lee ML. Effectiveness of two web-based interventions for chronic cancer-related fatigue compared to an active control condition: results of the "Fitter na kanker" randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. Oct 19, 2017;19(10):e336. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    136. Chan C, Inskip JA, Kirkham AR, Ansermino JM, Dumont G, Li LC, et al. A smartphone oximeter with a fingertip probe for use during exercise training: usability, validity and reliability in individuals with chronic lung disease and healthy controls. Physiotherapy. Sep 2019;105(3):297-306. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    137. Cingi C, Yorgancioglu A, Cingi CC, Oguzulgen K, Muluk NB, Ulusoy S, et al. The "physician on call patient engagement trial" (POPET): measuring the impact of a mobile patient engagement application on health outcomes and quality of life in allergic rhinitis and asthma patients. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. Jun 2015;5(6):487-497. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    138. Costa Stutzel M, Filippo MP, Sztajnberg A, da Costa RM, da Silva Brites Q, da Motta LB, et al. Multi-part quality evaluation of a customized mobile application for monitoring elderly patients with functional loss and helping caregivers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. Jul 22, 2019;19(1):140. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    139. Davis LE, Harnar J, LaChey-Barbee LA, Pirio Richardson S, Fraser A, King MK. Using teleneurology to deliver chronic neurologic care to rural veterans: analysis of the first 1,100 patient visits. Telemed J E Health. Apr 2019;25(4):274-278. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    140. Dodakian L, McKenzie AL, Le V, See J, Pearson-Fuhrhop K, Burke Quinlan E, et al. A home-based telerehabilitation program for patients with stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31(10-11):923-933. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    141. Doyle N, Murphy M, Brennan L, Waugh A, McCann M, Mellotte G. The "Mikidney" smartphone app pilot study: empowering patients with Chronic Kidney Disease. J Ren Care. Sep 2019;45(3):133-140. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    142. Farmer A, Williams V, Velardo C, Shah SA, Yu LM, Rutter H, et al. Self-management support using a digital health system compared with usual care for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. May 03, 2017;19(5):e144. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    143. Fernon A, Nguyen A, Baysari M, Day R. A user-centred approach to designing an eTool for gout management. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2016;227:28-33. [Medline]
    144. Forbes G, Newton S, Cantalapiedra Calvete C, Birch J, Dodds J, Steed L, et al. MEMPHIS: a smartphone app using psychological approaches for women with chronic pelvic pain presenting to gynaecology clinics: a randomised feasibility trial. BMJ Open. Mar 12, 2020;10(3):e030164. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    145. Ford AR, Gibbons CM, Torres J, Kornmehl HA, Singh S, Young PM, et al. Access to dermatological care with an innovative online model for psoriasis management: results from a randomized controlled trial. Telemed J E Health. Jul 2019;25(7):619-627. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    146. Gabbard J, McLouth CJ, Brenes G, Claudel S, Ongchuan S, Burkart J, et al. Rapid electronic capturing of patient-reported outcome measures in older adults with end-stage renal disease: a feasibility study. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. May 2021;38(5):432-440. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    147. Geirhos A, Domhardt M, Lunkenheimer F, Temming S, Holl RW, Minden K, et al. Feasibility and potential efficacy of a guided internet- and mobile-based CBT for adolescents and young adults with chronic medical conditions and comorbid depression or anxiety symptoms (youthCOACH): a randomized controlled pilot trial. BMC Pediatr. Jan 29, 2022;22(1):69. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    148. Guo X, Gu X, Jiang J, Li H, Duan R, Zhang Y, et al. A hospital-community-family-based telehealth program for patients with chronic heart failure: single-arm, prospective feasibility study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Dec 13, 2019;7(12):e13229. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    149. Hale TM, Jethwani K, Kandola MS, Saldana F, Kvedar JC. A remote medication monitoring system for chronic heart failure patients to reduce readmissions: a two-arm randomized pilot study. J Med Internet Res. Apr 17, 2016;18(5):e91. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    150. Halterman JS, Fagnano M, Tajon RS, Tremblay P, Wang H, Butz A, et al. Effect of the school-based telemedicine enhanced asthma management (SB-TEAM) program on asthma morbidity: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. Mar 05, 2018;172(3):e174938. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    151. Huygens MW, Voogdt-Pruis HR, Wouters M, Meurs MM, van Lettow B, Kleijweg C, et al. The uptake and use of telemonitoring in chronic care between 2014 and 2019: nationwide survey among patients and health care professionals in the Netherlands. J Med Internet Res. May 03, 2021;23(5):e24908. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    152. Jiménez-Reguera B, Maroto López E, Fitch S, Juarros L, Sánchez Cortés M, Rodríguez Hermosa JL, et al. Development and preliminary evaluation of the effects of an mhealth web-based platform (HappyAir) on adherence to a maintenance program after pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jul 31, 2020;8(7):e18465. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    153. Kadiri SB, Kerr AP, Oswald NK, Budacan AM, Flanagan S, Golby C, et al. Fit 4 surgery, a bespoke app with biofeedback delivers rehabilitation at home before and after elective lung resection. J Cardiothorac Surg. Jul 05, 2019;14(1):132. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    154. Kamei T, Yamamoto Y, Kanamori T, Nakayama Y, Porter SE. Detection of early-stage changes in people with chronic diseases: a telehome monitoring-based telenursing feasibility study. Nurs Health Sci. Sep 2018;20(3):313-322. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    155. Kazankov K, Novelli S, Chatterjee DA, Phillips A, Balaji A, Raja M, et al. Evaluation of CirrhoCare® - a digital health solution for home management of individuals with cirrhosis. J Hepatol. Jan 2023;78(1):123-132. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    156. Kenealy TW, Parsons MJ, Rouse AP, Doughty RN, Sheridan NF, Hindmarsh JK, et al. Telecare for diabetes, CHF or COPD: effect on quality of life, hospital use and costs. A randomised controlled trial and qualitative evaluation. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0116188. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    157. Kouri A, Yamada J, Sale JE, Straus SE, Gupta S. Primary care pre-visit electronic patient questionnaire for asthma: uptake analysis and predictor modeling. J Med Internet Res. Sep 18, 2020;22(9):e19358. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    158. Lalloo C, Hundert A, Harris L, Pham Q, Campbell F, Chorney J, et al. Capturing daily disease experiences of adolescents with chronic pain: mHealth-mediated symptom tracking. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jan 17, 2019;7(1):e11838. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    159. Li WY, Chiu FC, Zeng JK, Li YW, Huang SH, Yeh HC, et al. Mobile health app with social media to support self-management for patients with chronic kidney disease: prospective randomized controlled study. J Med Internet Res. Dec 15, 2020;22(12):e19452. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    160. Lopez JJ, Svetanoff WJ, Rosen JM, Carrasco A, Rentea RM, Comprehensive Colorectal Center of Children’s Mercy Hospital‚ Kansas City‚ MO. Leveraging collaboration in pediatric multidisciplinary colorectal care using a telehealth platform. Am Surg. Sep 2022;88(9):2320-2326. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    161. Mammen JR, Schoonmaker JD, Java J, Halterman J, Berliant MN, Crowley A, et al. Going mobile with primary care: smartphone-telemedicine for asthma management in young urban adults (TEAMS). J Asthma. Jan 2022;59(1):132-144. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    162. Martínez García MA, Fernández Rosales MS, López Domínguez E, Hernández Velázquez Y, Domínguez Isidro S. Telemonitoring system for patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing peritoneal dialysis: usability assessment based on a case study. PLoS One. 2018;13(11):e0206600. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    163. Mattocks KM, LaChappelle KM, Krein SL, DeBar LL, Martino S, Edmond S, et al. Pre-implementation formative evaluation of cooperative pain education and self-management expanding treatment for real-world access: a pragmatic pain trial. Pain Pract. Apr 2023;23(4):338-348. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    164. Morano JP, Clauson K, Zhou Z, Escobar-Viera CG, Lieb S, Chen IK, et al. Attitudes, beliefs, and willingness toward the use of mHealth tools for medication adherence in the Florida mHealth adherence project for people living with HIV (FL-mAPP): pilot questionnaire study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jul 03, 2019;7(7):e12900. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    165. Morisada MV, Hwang J, Gill AS, Wilson MD, Strong EB, Steele TO. Telemedicine, patient satisfaction, and chronic rhinosinusitis care in the era of COVID-19. Am J Rhinol Allergy. Jul 2021;35(4):494-499. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    166. Muroff J, Robinson W, Chassler D, López LM, Gaitan E, Lundgren L, et al. Use of a smartphone recovery tool for Latinos with co-occurring alcohol and other drug disorders and mental disorders. J Dual Diagn. 2017;13(4):280-290. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    167. Nancarrow S, Banbury A, Buckley J. Evaluation of a national broadband network-enabled telehealth trial for older people with chronic disease. Aust Health Rev. Jan 2016;40(6):641-648. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    168. Nohra RG, Chaaban T, Sacre H, Salameh P, Aoun Bacha Z, Le Bon Chami B, et al. Evaluating the feasibility and pretesting the impact of an educational and telemonitoring program for COPD patients in Lebanon. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2022;17:949-965. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    169. Nyberg A, Tistad M, Wadell K. Can the COPD web be used to promote self-management in patients with COPD in swedish primary care: a controlled pragmatic pilot trial with 3 month- and 12 month follow-up. Scand J Prim Health Care. Mar 2019;37(1):69-82. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    170. Paldán K, Steinmetz M, Simanovski J, Rammos C, Ullrich G, Jánosi RA, et al. Supervised exercise therapy using mobile health technology in patients with peripheral arterial disease: pilot randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Aug 16, 2021;9(8):e24214. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    171. Panagopoulos C, Malli F, Menychtas A, Smyrli EP, Georgountzou A, Daniil Z, et al. Utilizing a homecare platform for remote monitoring of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2017;989:177-187. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    172. Pariser P, Pham TN, Brown JB, Stewart M, Charles J. Connecting people with multimorbidity to interprofessional teams using telemedicine. Ann Fam Med. Aug 12, 2019;17(Suppl 1):S57-S62. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    173. Picton P, Wiljer D, Urowitz S, Cafazzo JA. Engaging patients in online self-care technologies for chronic disease management. Healthc Q. 2016;18(4):55-61. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    174. Pratap A, Grant D, Vegesna A, Tummalacherla M, Cohan S, Deshpande C, et al. Evaluating the utility of smartphone-based sensor assessments in persons with multiple sclerosis in the real-world using an app (elevateMS): observational, prospective pilot digital health study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Oct 27, 2020;8(10):e22108. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    175. Quaedackers L, De Wit J, Pillen S, Van Gilst M, Batalas N, Lammers GJ, et al. A mobile app for longterm monitoring of narcolepsy symptoms: design, development, and evaluation. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jan 07, 2020;8(1):e14939. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    176. Raghu A, Praveen D, Peiris D, Tarassenko L, Clifford G. Engineering a mobile health tool for resource-poor settings to assess and manage cardiovascular disease risk: SMARThealth study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. Apr 29, 2015;15:36. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    177. Roca S, Lozano ML, García J, Alesanco Á. Validation of a virtual assistant for improving medication adherence in patients with comorbid type 2 diabetes mellitus and depressive disorder. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Nov 17, 2021;18(22):12056. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    178. Rollo ME, Ash S, Lyons-Wall P, Russell AW. Evaluation of a mobile phone image-based dietary assessment method in adults with type 2 diabetes. Nutrients. Jun 17, 2015;7(6):4897-4910. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    179. Rudolf I, Pieper K, Nolte H, Junge S, Dopfer C, Sauer-Heilborn A, et al. Assessment of a mobile app by adolescents and young adults with cystic fibrosis: pilot evaluation. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Nov 21, 2019;7(11):e12442. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    180. Santo K, Singleton A, Rogers K, Thiagalingam A, Chalmers J, Chow CK, et al. Medication reminder applications to improve adherence in coronary heart disease: a randomised clinical trial. Heart. Feb 2019;105(4):323-329. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    181. Schougaard LM, Larsen LP, Jessen A, Sidenius P, Dorflinger L, de Thurah A, et al. AmbuFlex: tele-patient-reported outcomes (telePRO) as the basis for follow-up in chronic and malignant diseases. Qual Life Res. Mar 2016;25(3):525-534. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    182. Sönnerfors P, Wadell K, Dohrn IM, Nyberg A, Runold M, Halvarsson A. Use of an eHealth tool for exercise training and online contact in people with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on long-term oxygen treatment: a feasibility study. Health Informatics J. Dec 2020;26(4):3184-3200. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    183. Steare T, Giorgalli M, Free K, Harju-Seppänen J, Akther S, Eskinazi M, et al. A qualitative study of stakeholder views on the use of a digital app for supported self-management in early intervention services for psychosis. BMC Psychiatry. Jun 19, 2021;21(1):311. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    184. Stonbraker S, Cho H, Hermosi G, Pichon A, Schnall R. Usability testing of a mHealth app to support self-management of HIV-associated non-AIDS related symptoms. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2018;250:106-110. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    185. Stroupe KT, Martinez R, Hogan TP, Evans CT, Scholten J, Bidelspach D, et al. Health care utilization and costs of veterans evaluated for traumatic brain injury through telehealth. Telemed J E Health. Dec 2019;25(12):1144-1153. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    186. Talal AH, Markatou M, Sofikitou EM, Brown LS, Perumalswami P, Dinani A, et al. Patient-centered HCV care via telemedicine for individuals on medication for opioid use disorder: Telemedicine for Evaluation, Adherence and Medication for Hepatitis C (TEAM-C). Contemp Clin Trials. Jan 2022;112:106632. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    187. Talboom-Kamp EP, Holstege MS, Chavannes NH, Kasteleyn MJ. Effects of use of an eHealth platform e-Vita for COPD patients on disease specific quality of life domains. Respir Res. Jul 10, 2019;20(1):146. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    188. Tassorelli C, Jensen R, Allena M, De Icco R, Katsarava Z, Miguel Lainez J, et al. COMOESTAS Consortium. The added value of an electronic monitoring and alerting system in the management of medication-overuse headache: a controlled multicentre study. Cephalalgia. Oct 2017;37(12):1115-1125. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    189. Taylor AH, Taylor RS, Ingram WM, Anokye N, Dean S, Jolly K, et al. Adding web-based behavioural support to exercise referral schemes for inactive adults with chronic health conditions: the e-coachER RCT. Health Technol Assess. Nov 2020;24(63):1-106. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    190. Tillis W, Bond WF, Svendsen J, Guither S. Implementation of activity sensor equipment in the homes of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Telemed J E Health. Nov 2017;23(11):920-929. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    191. Trosini-Désert V, Lafoeste H, Regard L, Malrin R, Galarza-Jimenez MA, Amarilla CE, et al. A telemedicine intervention to ensure the correct usage of inhaler devices. Telemed J E Health. Nov 2020;26(11):1336-1344. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    192. Turino C, Benítez ID, Rafael-Palou X, Mayoral A, Lopera A, Pascual L, et al. Management and treatment of patients with obstructive sleep apnea using an intelligent monitoring system based on machine learning aiming to improve continuous positive airway pressure treatment compliance: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. Oct 18, 2021;23(10):e24072. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    193. Tyrrell JS, Redshaw CH. Physical activity in ankylosing spondylitis: evaluation and analysis of an eHealth tool. J Innov Health Inform. Jul 04, 2016;23(2):169. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    194. Urech C, Grossert A, Alder J, Scherer S, Handschin B, Kasenda B, et al. Web-based stress management for newly diagnosed patients with cancer (STREAM): a randomized, wait-list controlled intervention study. J Clin Oncol. Mar 10, 2018;36(8):780-788. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    195. Verwey R, van der Weegen S, Spreeuwenberg M, Tange H, van der Weijden T, de Witte L. Process evaluation of physical activity counselling with and without the use of mobile technology: a mixed methods study. Int J Nurs Stud. Jan 2016;53:3-16. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    196. Welzel FD, Bär J, Stein J, Löbner M, Pabst A, Luppa M, et al. Using a brief web-based 5A intervention to improve weight management in primary care: results of a cluster-randomized controlled trial. BMC Fam Pract. Apr 02, 2021;22(1):61. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    197. Wheeler TS, Michael Vallis T, Giacomantonio NB, Abidi SR. Feasibility and usability of an ontology-based mobile intervention for patients with hypertension. Int J Med Inform. Nov 2018;119:8-16. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    198. Zetterqvist V, Gentili C, Rickardsson J, Sörensen I, Wicksell RK. Internet-delivered acceptance and commitment therapy for adolescents with chronic pain and their parents: a nonrandomized pilot trial. J Pediatr Psychol. Oct 01, 2020;45(9):990-1004. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    199. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. Jul 2016;75:40-46. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    200. Ahmadvand A, Kavanagh D, Clark M, Drennan J, Nissen L. Trends and visibility of "digital health" as a keyword in articles by JMIR publications in the new millennium: bibliographic-bibliometric analysis. J Med Internet Res. Dec 19, 2019;21(12):e10477. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    201. Countries. World Health Organization (WHO). 2022. URL: https://www.who.int/countries [accessed 2022-10-29]
    202. Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, Damschroder LJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implement Sci. Aug 07, 2015;10:109. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    203. Grol R, Wensing M. What drives change? Barriers to and incentives for achieving evidence-based practice. Med J Aust. Mar 15, 2004;180(S6):S57-S60. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    204. Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. Feb 12, 2015;10:21. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    205. Nordin C, Michaelson P, Eriksson MK, Gard G. It's about me: patients' experiences of patient participation in the web behavior change program for activity in combination with multimodal pain rehabilitation. J Med Internet Res. Jan 18, 2017;19(1):e22. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    206. Duan H, Wang Z, Ji Y, Ma L, Liu F, Chi M, et al. Using goal-directed design to create a mobile health app to improve patient compliance with hypertension self-management: development and deployment. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Feb 25, 2020;8(2):e14466. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    207. Infarinato F, Jansen-Kosterink S, Romano P, van Velsen L, Op den Akker H, Rizza F, et al. Acceptance and potential impact of the eWALL platform for health monitoring and promotion in persons with a chronic disease or age-related impairment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Oct 28, 2020;17(21):7893. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    208. Kwok JY, Lee JJ, Choi EP, Chau PH, Auyeung M. Stay mindfully active during the coronavirus pandemic: a feasibility study of mHealth-delivered mindfulness yoga program for people with Parkinson's disease. BMC Complement Med Ther. Feb 07, 2022;22(1):37. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    209. Mucchi L, Jayousi S, Gant A, Paoletti E, Zoppi P. Tele-monitoring system for chronic diseases management: requirements and architecture. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Jul 13, 2021;18(14):7459. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    210. Sherwin LB, Deroche CB, Yevu-Johnson J, Matteson-Kome M, Bechtold M, Jahnke I, et al. Usability evaluation of a smartphone medication reminder application in patients treated with short-term antibiotic. Comput Inform Nurs. Apr 30, 2021;39(10):547-553. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    211. Tucker S, Abbott L, Anderson R, Eppen K, Laroche H, Paelmo E, et al. Implementing follow-along physical activity videos with people living with chronic conditions: a feasibility study. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. Oct 2019;16(5):352-361. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    212. Vatnøy TK, Thygesen E, Dale B. Telemedicine to support coping resources in home-living patients diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Patients' experiences. J Telemed Telecare. Jan 2017;23(1):126-132. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    213. Lundell S, Modig M, Holmner Å, Wadell K. Perceptions of home telemonitoring use among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: qualitative study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jun 03, 2020;8(6):e16343. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    214. Vest BM, Hall VM, Kahn LS, Heider AR, Maloney N, Singh R. Nurse perspectives on the implementation of routine telemonitoring for high-risk diabetes patients in a primary care setting. Prim Health Care Res Dev. Jan 2017;18(1):3-13. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    215. Vasi S, Advocat J, Adaji A, Russell G. Building quality chronic illness care: implementation of a web-based care plan. Aust J Prim Health. Apr 2020;26(2):173-177. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    216. Floch J, Vilarinho T, Zettl A, Ibanez-Sanchez G, Calvo-Lerma J, Stav E, et al. Users' experiences of a mobile health self-management approach for the treatment of cystic fibrosis: mixed methods study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jul 08, 2020;8(7):e15896. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    217. Zhang J, Mihai C, Tüshaus L, Scebba G, Distler O, Karlen W. Wound image quality from a mobile health tool for home-based chronic wound management with real-time quality feedback: randomized feasibility study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jul 30, 2021;9(7):e26149. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    218. Prevodnik K, Hvalič-Touzery S, Dolničar V, Zaletel J, Laznik J, Petrovčič A. Experience of patients with chronic conditions with telemedicine in primary care: a focus group analysis. Obzor Zdrav Neg. Dec 17, 2022;56(4):246-263. [CrossRef]
    219. Lehmann J, Buhl P, Giesinger JM, Wintner LM, Sztankay M, Neppl L, et al. Using the computer-based health evaluation system (CHES) to support self-management of symptoms and functional health: evaluation of hematological patient use of a web-based patient portal. J Med Internet Res. Jun 08, 2021;23(6):e26022. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    220. Ali HI, Attlee A, Alhebshi S, Elmi F, Al Dhaheri AS, Stojanovska L, et al. Feasibility study of a newly developed technology-mediated lifestyle intervention for overweight and obese young adults. Nutrients. Jul 26, 2021;13(8):2547. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    221. Amann J, Fiordelli M, Brach M, Bertschy S, Scheel-Sailer A, Rubinelli S. Co-designing a self-management app prototype to support people with spinal cord injury in the prevention of pressure injuries: mixed methods study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jul 09, 2020;8(7):e18018. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    222. Lambert J, Taylor A, Streeter A, Greaves C, Ingram WM, Dean S, et al. A process evaluation, with mediation analysis, of a web-based intervention to augment primary care exercise referral schemes: the e-coachER randomised controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. Sep 29, 2022;19(1):128. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    223. Morita PP, Yeung MS, Ferrone M, Taite AK, Madeley C, Stevens Lavigne A, et al. A patient-centered mobile health system that supports asthma self-management (breathe): design, development, and utilization. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jan 28, 2019;7(1):e10956. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    224. Sloots J, Bakker M, van der Palen J, Eijsvogel M, van der Valk P, Linssen G, et al. Adherence to an eHealth self-management intervention for patients with both COPD and heart failure: results of a pilot study. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2021;16:2089-2103. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    225. Smithson R, Roche E, Wicker C. Virtual models of chronic disease management: lessons from the experiences of virtual care during the COVID-19 response. Aust Health Rev. Jun 2021;45(3):311-316. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    226. Sobrinho A, da Silva LD, Perkusich A, Pinheiro ME, Cunha P. Design and evaluation of a mobile application to assist the self-monitoring of the chronic kidney disease in developing countries. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. Jan 12, 2018;18(1):7. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    227. Souza-Silva MV, Domingues ML, Chagas VS, Pereira DN, de Sá LC, Almeida MS, et al. Implementation of a text messaging intervention to patients on warfarin therapy in Brazilian primary care units: a quasi-experimental study. BMC Prim Care. Mar 23, 2022;23(1):54. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    228. Le Goff-Pronost M, Mourgeon B, Blanchère JP, Teot L, Benateau H, Dompmartin A. Real-world clinical evaluation and costs of telemedicine for chronic wound management. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. Jan 2018;34(6):567-575. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    229. Ong SW, Kaushal A, Pariser P, Chan CT. An integrated kidney care eConsult practice model: results from the iKinect project. Am J Nephrol. 2019;50(4):262-271. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    230. Herrmann S, Power B, Rashidi A, Cypher M, Mastaglia F, Grace A, et al. Supporting patient-clinician interaction in chronic HIV care: design and development of a patient-reported outcomes software application. J Med Internet Res. Jul 30, 2021;23(7):e27861. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    231. Jakubowski KP, Jhamb M, Yabes J, Gujral S, Oberlin LE, Bender FH, et al. Technology-assisted cognitive-behavioral therapy intervention for end-stage renal disease. Transl Behav Med. Aug 07, 2020;10(3):657-663. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    232. Carlsen K, Jakobsen C, Houen G, Kallemose T, Paerregaard A, Riis LB, et al. Self-managed eHealth disease monitoring in children and adolescents with inflammatory bowel disease: a randomized controlled trial. Inflamm Bowel Dis. Mar 2017;23(3):357-365. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    233. Katz IJ, Pirabhahar S, Williamson P, Raghunath V, Brennan F, O'Sullivan A, et al. iConnect CKD - virtual medical consulting: a web-based chronic kidney disease, hypertension and diabetes integrated care program. Nephrology (Carlton). Jul 2018;23(7):646-652. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    234. Nagel T, Sweet M, Dingwall KM, Puszka S, Hughes JT, Kavanagh DJ, et al. Adapting wellbeing research tools for Aboriginal and Torres strait islander people with chronic kidney disease. BMC Nephrol. Apr 15, 2020;21(1):130. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    235. Eisner E, Drake RJ, Berry N, Barrowclough C, Emsley R, Machin M, et al. Development and long-term acceptability of ExPRESS, a mobile phone app to monitor basic symptoms and early signs of psychosis relapse. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Mar 29, 2019;7(3):e11568. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    236. Hicks TA, Thomas SP, Wilson SM, Calhoun PS, Kuhn ER, Beckham JC. A preliminary investigation of a relapse prevention mobile application to maintain smoking abstinence among individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder. J Dual Diagn. 2017;13(1):15-20. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    237. Kock A, Kaya RS, Müller C, Andersen B, Langer T, Ingenerf J. Design, implementation, and evaluation of a mobile application for patient empowerment and management of long-term follow-up after childhood cancer. Klin Padiatr. May 2015;227(3):166-170. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    238. Reading Turchioe M, Grossman LV, Baik D, Lee CS, Maurer MS, Goyal P, et al. Older adults can successfully monitor symptoms using an inclusively designed mobile application. J Am Geriatr Soc. Jun 2020;68(6):1313-1318. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    239. Sumino K, Locke ER, Magzamen S, Gylys-Colwell I, Humblet O, Nguyen HQ, et al. Use of a remote inhaler monitoring device to measure change in inhaler use with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. Jun 2018;31(3):191-198. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    240. Zahid M, Gallant NL, Hadjistavropoulos T, Stroulia E. Behavioral pain assessment implementation in long-term care using a tablet app: case series and quasi-experimental design. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Apr 22, 2020;8(4):e17108. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    241. Flujas-Contreras JM, Ruiz-Castañeda D, Gómez I. Promoting emotional well-being in hospitalized children and adolescents with virtual reality: usability and acceptability of a randomized controlled trial. Comput Inform Nurs. Feb 2020;38(2):99-107. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    242. Hauser-Ulrich S, Künzli H, Meier-Peterhans D, Kowatsch T. A smartphone-based health care chatbot to promote self-management of chronic pain (SELMA): pilot randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Apr 03, 2020;8(4):e15806. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    243. Jain YS, Garg A, Jhamb DK, Jain P, Karar A. Preparing India to leverage power of mobile technology: development of a bilingual mobile health tool for heart patients. Cardiovasc Hematol Agents Med Chem. 2019;17(2):125-134. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    244. Knox L, Dunning M, Davies CA, Mills-Bennet R, Sion TW, Phipps K, et al. Safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of virtual pulmonary rehabilitation in the real world. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2019;14:775-780. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    245. Ahmedani BK, Crotty N, Abdulhak MM, Ondersma SJ. Pilot feasibility study of a brief, tailored mobile health intervention for depression among patients with chronic pain. Behav Med. 2015;41(1):25-32. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    246. Amorim AB, Pappas E, Simic M, Ferreira ML, Jennings M, Tiedemann A, et al. Integrating mobile-health, health coaching, and physical activity to reduce the burden of chronic low back pain trial (IMPACT): a pilot randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. Feb 11, 2019;20(1):71. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    247. Andrén P, Aspvall K, Fernández de la Cruz L, Wiktor P, Romano S, Andersson E, et al. Therapist-guided and parent-guided internet-delivered behaviour therapy for paediatric Tourette's disorder: a pilot randomised controlled trial with long-term follow-up. BMJ Open. Feb 15, 2019;9(2):e024685. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    248. Cooke M, Richards J, Tjondronegoro D, Raj Chakraborty P, Jauncey-Cooke J, Andresen E, et al. myPainPal: Co-creation of a mHealth app for the management of chronic pain in young people. Inform Health Soc Care. Sep 02, 2021;46(3):291-305. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    249. Crawford MR, Luik AI, Espie CA, Taylor HL, Burgess HJ, Jones AL, Rush University Sleep Research Team, et al. Digital cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia in women with chronic migraines. Headache. May 2020;60(5):902-915. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    250. de Jong M, van der Meulen-de Jong A, Romberg-Camps M, Degens J, Becx M, Markus T, et al. Development and feasibility study of a telemedicine tool for all patients with IBD: MyIBDcoach. Inflamm Bowel Dis. Apr 2017;23(4):485-493. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    251. Imtiaz R, Atkinson K, Guerinet J, Wilson K, Leidecker J, Zimmerman D. A pilot study of OkKidney, a phosphate counting application in patients on peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int. 2017;37(6):613-618. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    252. Martínez P, Guajardo V, Gómez VE, Brandt S, Szabo W, Soto-Brandt G, et al. Technology-assisted collaborative care program for people with diabetes and/or high blood pressure attending primary health care: a feasibility study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Nov 15, 2021;18(22):12000. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    253. Maxwell LG, McFarland MS, Baker JW, Cassidy RF. Evaluation of the impact of a pharmacist-led telehealth clinic on diabetes-related goals of therapy in a veteran population. Pharmacotherapy. Mar 2016;36(3):348-356. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    254. Ng G, Tan N, Bahadin J, Shum E, Tan SW. Development of an automated healthcare kiosk for the management of chronic disease patients in the primary care setting. J Med Syst. Jul 2016;40(7):169. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    255. Or C, Tao D. A 3-month randomized controlled pilot trial of a patient-centered, computer-based self-monitoring system for the care of type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. J Med Syst. Apr 2016;40(4):81. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    256. Zand A, Nguyen A, Reynolds C, Khandadash A, Esrailian E, Hommes D. Patient experience and satisfaction with an e-Health care management application for inflammatory bowel diseases. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Nov 09, 2021;18(22):11747. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    257. Wallace T, Morris JT, Glickstein R, Anderson RK, Gore RK. Implementation of a mobile technology-supported diaphragmatic breathing intervention in military mTBI with PTSD. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2022;37(3):152-161. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    258. Deng N, Chen J, Liu Y, Wei S, Sheng L, Lu R, et al. Using mobile health technology to deliver a community-based closed-loop management system for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients in remote areas of China: development and prospective observational study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Nov 25, 2020;8(11):e15978. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    259. Ho K, Newton L, Boothe A, Novak-Lauscher H. Mobile digital access to a web-enhanced network (mDAWN): assessing the feasibility of mobile health tools for self-management of type-2 diabetes. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2015;2015:621-629. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    260. Khan F, Granville N, Malkani R, Chathampally Y. Health-related quality of life improvements in systemic lupus erythematosus derived from a digital therapeutic plus tele-health coaching intervention: randomized controlled pilot trial. J Med Internet Res. Oct 20, 2020;22(10):e23868. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    261. Lewis A, Knight E, Bland M, Middleton J, Mitchell E, McCrum K, et al. Feasibility of an online platform delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation for individuals with chronic respiratory disease. BMJ Open Respir Res. Mar 2021;8(1):33762360. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    262. Niendam TA, Tully LM, Iosif AM, Kumar D, Nye KE, Denton JC, et al. Enhancing early psychosis treatment using smartphone technology: a longitudinal feasibility and validity study. J Psychiatr Res. Jan 2018;96:239-246. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    263. Passardi A, Foca F, Caffo O, Tondini CA, Zambelli A, Vespignani R, et al. A remote monitoring system to optimize the home management of oral anticancer therapies (ONCO-TreC): prospective training-validation trial. J Med Internet Res. Jan 26, 2022;24(1):e27349. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    264. Easton K, Potter S, Bec R, Bennion M, Christensen H, Grindell C, et al. A virtual agent to support individuals living with physical and mental comorbidities: co-design and acceptability testing. J Med Internet Res. May 30, 2019;21(5):e12996. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    265. Rudin RS, Fanta CH, Qureshi N, Duffy E, Edelen MO, Dalal AK, et al. A clinically integrated mHealth app and practice model for collecting patient-reported outcomes between visits for asthma patients: implementation and feasibility. Appl Clin Inform. Oct 2019;10(5):783-793. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    266. Talal AH, Jaanimägi U, Davis K, Bailey J, Bauer BM, Dharia A, et al. Facilitating engagement of persons with opioid use disorder in treatment for hepatitis C virus infection via telemedicine: stories of onsite case managers. J Subst Abuse Treat. Aug 2021;127:108421. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    267. Frederix I, Hansen D, Coninx K, Vandervoort P, Vandijck D, Hens N, et al. Medium-term effectiveness of a comprehensive internet-based and patient-specific telerehabilitation program with text messaging support for cardiac patients: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. Jul 23, 2015;17(7):e185. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    268. Puig J, Echeverría P, Lluch T, Herms J, Estany C, Bonjoch A, et al. A specific mobile health application for older HIV-infected patients: usability and patient's satisfaction. Telemed J E Health. Apr 2021;27(4):432-440. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    269. Peterson S. Telerehabilitation booster sessions and remote patient monitoring in the management of chronic low back pain: a case series. Physiother Theory Pract. May 2018;34(5):393-402. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    270. Donald M, Beanlands H, Straus S, Smekal M, Gil S, Elliott MJ, et al. An eHealth self-management intervention for adults with chronic kidney disease, My Kidneys My Health: a mixed-methods study. CMAJ Open. 2022;10(3):E746-E754. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    271. Banerjee A, Ramanujan RA, Agnihothri S. Mobile health monitoring: development and implementation of an app in a diabetes and hypertension clinic. In: Proceedings of the 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2016. Presented at: HICSS '16; January 5-8, 2016:5-8; Koloa, HI. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7427611 [CrossRef]
    272. Guo X, Yang Y, Takiff HE, Zhu M, Ma J, Zhong T, et al. A comprehensive app that improves tuberculosis treatment management through video-observed therapy: usability study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jul 31, 2020;8(7):e17658. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    273. Sjöström M, Umefjord G, Stenlund H, Carlbring P, Andersson G, Samuelsson E. Internet-based treatment of stress urinary incontinence: 1- and 2-year results of a randomized controlled trial with a focus on pelvic floor muscle training. BJU Int. Dec 2015;116(6):955-964. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    274. Song CE, An M. The self-management smartphone application for cancer survivors, ReLive: development and usability testing. Comput Inform Nurs. Jun 2021;39(6):312-320. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    275. Choi YH, Park HK, Paik N. A telerehabilitation approach for chronic aphasia following stroke. Telemed J E Health. May 2016;22(5):434-440. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    276. Cella M, Okruszek Ł, Lawrence M, Zarlenga V, He Z, Wykes T. Using wearable technology to detect the autonomic signature of illness severity in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. May 2018;195:537-542. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    277. Looman WS, Antolick M, Cady RG, Lunos SA, Garwick AE, Finkelstein SM. Effects of a telehealth care coordination intervention on perceptions of health care by caregivers of children with medical complexity: a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr Health Care. 2015;29(4):352-363. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    278. Jonathan G, Carpenter-Song EA, Brian RM, Ben-Zeev D. Life with FOCUS: a qualitative evaluation of the impact of a smartphone intervention on people with serious mental illness. Psychiatr Rehabil J. Jun 2019;42(2):182-189. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    279. Pludwinski S, Ahmad F, Wayne N, Ritvo P. Participant experiences in a smartphone-based health coaching intervention for type 2 diabetes: a qualitative inquiry. J Telemed Telecare. Apr 2016;22(3):172-178. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    280. Ahmed S, Ernst P, Bartlett SJ, Valois M, Zaihra T, Paré G, et al. The effectiveness of web-based asthma self-management system, my asthma portal (MAP): a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. Dec 01, 2016;18(12):e313. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    281. Donesky D, Selman L, McDermott K, Citron T, Howie-Esquivel J. Evaluation of the feasibility of a home-based TeleYoga intervention in participants with both chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure. J Altern Complement Med. Sep 2017;23(9):713-721. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    282. Claes J, Cornelissen V, McDermott C, Moyna N, Pattyn N, Cornelis N, et al. Feasibility, acceptability, and clinical effectiveness of a technology-enabled cardiac rehabilitation platform (physical activity toward health-I): randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. Feb 04, 2020;22(2):e14221. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    283. Selman L, McDermott K, Donesky D, Citron T, Howie-Esquivel J. Appropriateness and acceptability of a Tele-Yoga intervention for people with heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: qualitative findings from a controlled pilot study. BMC Complement Altern Med. Feb 07, 2015;15:21. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    284. Kim A, Yun SJ, Sung KS, Kim Y, Jo JY, Cho H, et al. Exercise management using a mobile app in patients with Parkinsonism: prospective, open-label, single-arm pilot study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Aug 31, 2021;9(8):e27662. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    285. Peters D, Davis S, Calvo RA, Sawyer SM, Smith L, Foster JM. Young people's preferences for an asthma self-management app highlight psychological needs: a participatory study. J Med Internet Res. Apr 11, 2017;19(4):e113. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    286. Thomas RM, Locke ER, Woo DM, Nguyen EH, Press VG, Layouni TA, et al. Inhaler training delivered by internet-based home videoconferencing improves technique and quality of life. Respir Care. Nov 2017;62(11):1412-1422. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    287. Wickerson L, Helm D, Gottesman C, Rozenberg D, Singer LG, Keshavjee S, et al. Telerehabilitation for lung transplant candidates and recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic: program evaluation. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jun 17, 2021;9(6):e28708. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    288. Ajayi TA, Salongo L, Zang Y, Wineinger N, Steinhubl S. Mobile health-collected biophysical markers in children with serious illness-related pain. J Palliat Med. Apr 2021;24(4):580-588. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    289. Glattacker M, Boeker M, Anger R, Reichenbach F, Tassoni A, Bredenkamp R, et al. Evaluation of a mobile phone app for patients with pollen-related allergic rhinitis: prospective longitudinal field study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Apr 17, 2020;8(4):e15514. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    290. Seneviratne MG, Hersch F, Peiris DP. HealthNavigator: a mobile application for chronic disease screening and linkage to services at an urban primary health network. Aust J Prim Health. May 2018;24(2):116-122. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    291. Krkoska P, Vlazna D, Sladeckova M, Minarikova J, Barusova T, Batalik L, et al. Adherence and effect of home-based rehabilitation with telemonitoring support in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a pilot study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Jan 13, 2023;20(2):1504. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    292. Ayatollahi H, Hasannezhad M, Fard HS, Haghighi MK. Type 1 diabetes self-management: developing a web-based telemedicine application. Health Inf Manag. Apr 2016;45(1):16-26. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    293. Ware P, Shah A, Ross HJ, Logan AG, Segal P, Cafazzo JA, et al. Challenges of telemonitoring programs for complex chronic conditions: randomized controlled trial with an embedded qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. Jan 26, 2022;24(1):e31754. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    294. Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, Lynch J, Hughes G, A'Court C, et al. Beyond adoption: a new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. J Med Internet Res. Nov 01, 2017;19(11):e367. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    295. Kislov R, Pope C, Martin GP, Wilson PM. Harnessing the power of theorising in implementation science. Implement Sci. Dec 11, 2019;14(1):103. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    296. Kelley K, Clark B, Brown V, Sitzia J. Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. Int J Qual Health Care. Jun 2003;15(3):261-266. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    297. Willis VC, Thomas Craig KJ, Jabbarpour Y, Scheufele EL, Arriaga YE, Ajinkya M, et al. Digital health interventions to enhance prevention in primary care: scoping review. JMIR Med Inform. Jan 21, 2022;10(1):e33518. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    298. Patel S, Akhtar A, Malins S, Wright N, Rowley E, Young E, et al. The acceptability and usability of digital health interventions for adults with depression, anxiety, and somatoform disorders: qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis. J Med Internet Res. Jul 06, 2020;22(7):e16228. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    299. Lim S, Tan A, Madden S, Hill B. Health professionals' and postpartum women's perspectives on digital health interventions for lifestyle management in the postpartum period: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:767. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    300. Grande D, Luna Marti X, Feuerstein-Simon R, Merchant RM, Asch DA, Lewson A, et al. Health policy and privacy challenges associated with digital technology. JAMA Netw Open. Jul 01, 2020;3(7):e208285. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    301. Paul M, Maglaras L, Ferrag MA, Almomani I. Digitization of healthcare sector: a study on privacy and security concerns. ICT Express. Aug 2023;9(4):571-588. [CrossRef]
    302. Proctor EK, Bunger AC, Lengnick-Hall R, Gerke DR, Martin JK, Phillips RJ, et al. Ten years of implementation outcomes research: a scoping review. Implement Sci. Jul 25, 2023;18(1):31. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    303. Pinnock H, Barwick M, Carpenter CR, Eldridge S, Grandes G, Griffiths CJ, et al. StaRI Group. Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI): explanation and elaboration document. BMJ Open. Apr 03, 2017;7(4):e013318. [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    COM-B: capability, opportunity, motivation, behavior
    ERIC: Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change
    ICT: information and communication technology
    mHealth: mobile health
    PRESS: Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies
    StaRI: Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies

    Edited by N Cahill; submitted 11.10.23; peer-reviewed by A Bucher, N Gudi, KY Hsieh; comments to author 10.02.24; revised version received 26.03.24; accepted 28.10.24; published 12.12.24.

    Copyright

    ©Candelyn Pong, Rachel Marjorie Wei Wen Tseng, Yih Chung Tham, Elaine Lum. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 12.12.2024.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (ISSN 1438-8871), is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.