Cargando…
Evaluation Methods in Clinical Health Technologies: A Systematic Review
BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to classify the types of evaluation methods in clinical health technologies based on a systematic review method. METHODS: An electronic search was conducted in three scientific databases including Scopus, PubMed and ISI. The search strategy was performed in Jul t...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Tehran University of Medical Sciences
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10362203/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37484728 http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v52i5.12708 |
_version_ | 1785076373410283520 |
---|---|
author | Mohammadzadeh, Niloofar Rahmani Katigari, Meysam Hosseini, Rahil Pahlevanynejad, Shahrbanoo |
author_facet | Mohammadzadeh, Niloofar Rahmani Katigari, Meysam Hosseini, Rahil Pahlevanynejad, Shahrbanoo |
author_sort | Mohammadzadeh, Niloofar |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to classify the types of evaluation methods in clinical health technologies based on a systematic review method. METHODS: An electronic search was conducted in three scientific databases including Scopus, PubMed and ISI. The search strategy was performed in Jul to Nov 2021 and based on the three main concepts of “evaluation”, “technology”, “health. This search has been restricted to 10 years (2011–2021). Moreover, it only was limited to English and papers published in journals and conferences proceeding. RESULTS: Overall, 8149 references were identified for title and abstract screening. Full text screening was performed for 2674 articles, with 174 meeting the criteria for study inclusion. CONCLUSION: Most of the technologies evaluated in these articles were associated with PC-based systems (N=107), and there have been fewer mobile apps (N=67). Most of used technologies were with goals of treatment (43%, N=74) and education (26%, N=45). Among all the methods, the most and the least used methods were usability (66%, N=115) and qualitative (1%, N=2) method, respectively. The most method for health clinical technologies is usability method especially in telemedicine field. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10362203 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Tehran University of Medical Sciences |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103622032023-07-23 Evaluation Methods in Clinical Health Technologies: A Systematic Review Mohammadzadeh, Niloofar Rahmani Katigari, Meysam Hosseini, Rahil Pahlevanynejad, Shahrbanoo Iran J Public Health Review Article BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to classify the types of evaluation methods in clinical health technologies based on a systematic review method. METHODS: An electronic search was conducted in three scientific databases including Scopus, PubMed and ISI. The search strategy was performed in Jul to Nov 2021 and based on the three main concepts of “evaluation”, “technology”, “health. This search has been restricted to 10 years (2011–2021). Moreover, it only was limited to English and papers published in journals and conferences proceeding. RESULTS: Overall, 8149 references were identified for title and abstract screening. Full text screening was performed for 2674 articles, with 174 meeting the criteria for study inclusion. CONCLUSION: Most of the technologies evaluated in these articles were associated with PC-based systems (N=107), and there have been fewer mobile apps (N=67). Most of used technologies were with goals of treatment (43%, N=74) and education (26%, N=45). Among all the methods, the most and the least used methods were usability (66%, N=115) and qualitative (1%, N=2) method, respectively. The most method for health clinical technologies is usability method especially in telemedicine field. Tehran University of Medical Sciences 2023-05 /pmc/articles/PMC10362203/ /pubmed/37484728 http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v52i5.12708 Text en Copyright © 2023 Mohammadzadeh et al. Published by Tehran University of Medical Sciences https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Review Article Mohammadzadeh, Niloofar Rahmani Katigari, Meysam Hosseini, Rahil Pahlevanynejad, Shahrbanoo Evaluation Methods in Clinical Health Technologies: A Systematic Review |
title | Evaluation Methods in Clinical Health Technologies: A Systematic Review |
title_full | Evaluation Methods in Clinical Health Technologies: A Systematic Review |
title_fullStr | Evaluation Methods in Clinical Health Technologies: A Systematic Review |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation Methods in Clinical Health Technologies: A Systematic Review |
title_short | Evaluation Methods in Clinical Health Technologies: A Systematic Review |
title_sort | evaluation methods in clinical health technologies: a systematic review |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10362203/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37484728 http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v52i5.12708 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mohammadzadehniloofar evaluationmethodsinclinicalhealthtechnologiesasystematicreview AT rahmanikatigarimeysam evaluationmethodsinclinicalhealthtechnologiesasystematicreview AT hosseinirahil evaluationmethodsinclinicalhealthtechnologiesasystematicreview AT pahlevanynejadshahrbanoo evaluationmethodsinclinicalhealthtechnologiesasystematicreview |