DOI: 10.4121/cf925001-a64a-4b48-b29b-aa9f9611c540
title: Data underlying the publication: Timing, Indicators, and Approaches to Digital Patient Experience Evaluation: Umbrella Systematic Review

description: <strong>Background:</strong>The increasing prevalence of DH applications has outpaced research and practice in digital health (DH) evaluations. Patient experience (PEx) was reported as one of the challenges facing the health system by the World Health Organization. To generate evidence on DH and promote the appropriate integration and use of technologies, a standard evaluation of PEx in DH is required.<strong>Objective:</strong>This study aims to systematically identify evaluation timing considerations (ie, <em>when to measure</em>), evaluation indicators (ie, <em>what to measure</em>), and evaluation approaches (ie, <em>how to measure</em>) with regard to digital PEx. The overall aim of this study is to generate an evaluation guide for further improving digital PEx evaluation.<strong>Methods:</strong>This is a 2-phase study parallel to our previous study. In phase 1, literature reviews related to PEx in DH were systematically searched from Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. Two independent raters conducted 2 rounds of paper screening, including title and abstract screening and full-text screening, and assessed the interrater reliability for 20% (round 1: 23/115 and round 2: 12/58) random samples using the Fleiss-Cohen coefficient (round 1: <em>k</em>1=0.88 and round 2: <em>k</em>2=0.80). When reaching interrater reliability (<em>k</em>&gt;0.60), TW conducted the rest of the screening process, leaving any uncertainties for group discussions. Overall, 38% (45/119) of the articles were considered eligible for further thematic analysis. In phase 2, to check if there were any meaningful novel insights that would change our conclusions, we performed an updated literature search in which we collected 294 newly published reviews, of which 102 (34.7%) were identified as eligible articles. We considered them to have no important changes to our original results on the research objectives. Therefore, they were not integrated into the synthesis of this review and were used as supplementary materials.<strong>Results:</strong>Our review highlights 5 typical evaluation objectives that serve 5 stakeholder groups separately. We identified a set of key evaluation timing considerations and classified them into 3 categories: intervention maturity stages, timing of the evaluation, and timing of data collection. Information on evaluation indicators of digital PEx was identified and summarized into 3 categories (intervention outputs, patient outcomes, and health care system impact), 9 themes, and 22 subthemes. A set of evaluation theories, common study designs, data collection methods and instruments, and data analysis approaches was captured, which can be used or adapted to evaluate digital PEx.<strong>Conclusions:</strong>Our findings enabled us to generate an evaluation guide to help DH intervention researchers, designers, developers, and program evaluators evaluate digital PEx. Finally, we propose 6 directions for encouraging further digital PEx evaluation research and practice to address the challenge of poor PEx.