Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet #Preprint #PeerReviewMe: Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint. Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn. Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period. Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author). Background: Older adults with chronic disease are key beneficiaries of digital health technologies, yet adoption remains inconsistent, particularly in rural areas and among certain demographic groups, such as older women who are less likely to engage with digital health compared to men. Objective: This systematic review aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to digital health adoption among older adults with chronic disease, with particular attention to rural-urban differences, co-design, and equity-relevant factors. Methods: This updated review builds on a previously published review by extending the search to include PsycArticles, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed for studies published between April 2022 and September 2024. Grey literature from August 2021 onward was also included. Studies were eligible if they reported barriers and/or facilitators to digital health adoption among adults aged 60+ with chronic disease. Findings were mapped to the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B) and analysed using the PROGRESS-Plus equity framework. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), and all results are reported in line with PRISMA guidelines. Results: Twelve studies from the original review were retained, with 17 new peer-reviewed studies added, yielding a total of 29 studies, in addition to 30 documents identified in the grey literature search. Barriers identified included limited digital literacy, physical and cognitive challenges (Capability), infrastructural deficits and usability challenges (Opportunity), and privacy concerns, mistrust, and high satisfaction with existing care (Motivation). Facilitators included tailored training and accessible design (Capability), provider endorsement and hybrid care models (Opportunity), and recognition of digital health benefits (Motivation). Healthcare providers emerged as both facilitators and barriers—positively influencing adoption when engaged and trained but hindering it when lacking confidence or involvement. Comparative analysis of rural and urban contexts was limited by inconsistent reporting of equity-relevant variables. However, grey literature suggested rural users face additional infrastructural challenges but express higher satisfaction with local care, potentially reducing motivation for digital uptake. Gender differences were observed in three peer-reviewed studies and grey sources, with older women showing lower adoption and differing outcome priorities. Co-design enhanced adoption, especially when involving not just older adults but also healthcare providers and community stakeholders. Conclusions: Digital health adoption among older adults is shaped by capability, opportunity, and motivation factors. Effective and equitable digital health strategies must address infrastructural and literacy barriers, engage healthcare providers through training and co-design, and ensure multi-stakeholder involvement. This review highlights that greater attention to standardised reporting of demographic variables, especially gender and rurality, is essential in digital health research to avoid one-size-fits-all approaches and support inclusive implementation. Clinical Trial: Not applicable

Background: The last decade has seen an increase in the number of digital health interventions designed to support adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer. Objective: The objective of this review was to identify, characterize, and fully assess the quality, feasibility, and efficacy of existing digital health interventions developed specifically for AYAs, aged between 13 and 39 years, living with or beyond a cancer diagnosis. Methods: Searches were performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science to identify digital health interventions designed specifically for AYA living with or beyond a cancer diagnosis. Data on the characteristics and outcomes of each intervention were synthesized. Results: A total of 4731 intervention studies were identified through the searches; 38 interventions (43 research papers) met the inclusion criteria. Most (20/38, 53%) were website-based interventions. Most studies focused on symptom management and medication adherence (15, 39%), behavior change (15, 39%), self-care (8, 21%), and emotional health (7, 18%). Most digital health interventions included multiple automated and communicative functions such as enriched information environments, automated follow-up messages, and access to peer support. Where reported (20, 53% of studies), AYAs’ subjective experience of using the digital platform was typically positive. The overall quality of the studies was found to be good (mean Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields scores >68%). Some studies reported feasibility outcomes (uptake, acceptability, and attrition) but were not sufficiently powered to comment on intervention effects. Conclusions: Numerous digital interventions have been developed and designed to support young people living with and beyond a diagnosis of cancer. However, many of these interventions have yet to be deployed, implemented, and evaluated at scale.

Background: Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) are increasingly recognized as potential solutions for adolescent mental health, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals and universal health coverage are instrumental tools for achieving mental health for all. Within this context, understanding the design, evaluation, as well as the barriers and facilitators impacting adolescent engagement with mental health care through DMHIs is essential. Objective: This scoping review aims to provide insights into the current landscape of DMHIs for adolescents in LMICs. Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology was used, following the recommendations of the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews). Our search strategy incorporated 3 key concepts: population "adolescents," concept "digital mental health interventions," and context "LMICs." We adapted this strategy for various databases, including ACM Digital Library, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar (including gray literature), IEEE Xplore, ProQuest, PubMed (NLM), ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science. The articles were screened against a specific eligibility criterion from January 2019 to March 2024. Results: We analyzed 20 papers focusing on DMHIs for various mental health conditions among adolescents, such as depression, well-being, anxiety, stigma, self-harm, and suicide ideation. These interventions were delivered in diverse formats, including group delivery and self-guided interventions, with support from mental health professionals or involving lay professionals. The study designs and evaluation encompassed a range of methodologies, including randomized controlled trials, mixed methods studies, and feasibility studies. Conclusions: While there have been notable advancements in DMHIs for adolescents in LMICs, the research base remains limited. Significant knowledge gaps persist regarding the long-term clinical benefits, the maturity and readiness of LMIC digital infrastructure, cultural appropriateness, and cost-effectiveness across the heterogeneous LMIC settings. Addressing these gaps necessitates large-scale, co-designed, and culturally sensitive DMHI trials. Future work should address this.

Background: There has been an international shift in health care, which has seen an increasing focus and development of technological and personalized at-home interventions that aim to improve health outcomes and patient-clinician communication. However, there is a notable lack of empirical evidence describing the preparatory steps of adapting and implementing technology of this kind across multiple countries and clinical settings. Objective: This study aimed to describe the steps undertaken in the preparation of a multinational, multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test a mobile phone–based remote symptom monitoring system, that is, Advanced Symptom Management System (ASyMS), designed to enhance management of chemotherapy toxicities among people with cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy versus standard cancer center care. Methods: There were 13 cancer centers across 5 European countries (Austria, Greece, Ireland, Norway, and the United Kingdom). Multiple steps were undertaken, including a scoping review of empirical literature and clinical guidelines, translation and linguistic validation of study materials, development of standardized international care procedures, and the integration and evaluation of the technology within each cancer center. Results: The ASyMS was successfully implemented and deployed in clinical practices across 5 European countries. The rigorous and simultaneous steps undertaken by the research team highlighted the strengths of the system in clinical practice, as well as the clinical and technical changes required to meet the diverse needs of its intended users within each country, before the commencement of the RCT. Conclusions: Adapting and implementing this multinational, multicenter system required close attention to diverse considerations and unique challenges primarily related to communication and clinical and technical issues. Success was dependent on collaborative and transparent communication among academics, the technology industry, translation partners, patients, and clinicians as well as a simultaneous and rigorous methodological approach within the 5 relevant countries.

Background: Digital innovations are yet to make real impacts in the care home sector despite the considerable potential of digital health approaches to help with continued staff shortages and to improve quality of care. To understand the current landscape of digital innovation in long-term care facilities such as nursing and care homes, it is important to find out which clinical decision support tools are currently used in long-term care facilities, what their purpose is, how they were developed, and what types of data they use. Objective: The aim of this review was to analyze studies that evaluated clinical decision support tools in long-term care facilities based on the purpose and intended users of the tools, the evidence base used to develop the tools, how the tools are used and their effectiveness, and the types of data the tools use to contribute to the existing scientific evidence to inform a roadmap for digital innovation, specifically for clinical decision support tools, in long-term care facilities. Methods: A review of the literature published between January 1, 2010, and July 21, 2021, was conducted, using key search terms in 3 scientific journal databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and the British Nursing Index. Only studies evaluating clinical decision support tools in long-term care facilities were included in the review. Results: In total, 17 papers were included in the final review. The clinical decision support tools described in these papers were evaluated for medication management, pressure ulcer prevention, dementia management, falls prevention, hospitalization, malnutrition prevention, urinary tract infection, and COVID-19 infection. In general, the included studies show that decision support tools can show improvements in delivery of care and in health outcomes. Conclusions: Although the studies demonstrate the potential of positive impact of clinical decision support tools, there is variability in results, in part because of the diversity of types of decision support tools, users, and contexts as well as limited validation of the tools in use and in part because of the lack of clarity in defining the whole intervention.

Background: Colonoscopy is the gold standard for lower gastrointestinal diagnostics. The procedure is invasive, and its demand is high, resulting in long waiting times. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a procedure that uses a video capsule to investigate the colon, meaning that it can be carried out in a person’s own home. This type of “hospital-at-home” service could potentially reduce costs and waiting times, and increase patient satisfaction. Little is currently understood, however, about how CCE is actually experienced and accepted by patients. Objective: The aim of this study was to capture and report patient experiences of the CCE technology (the capsule and associated belt and recorder) and of the new clinical pathway for the CCE service being rolled out as part of routine service in Scotland. Methods: This was a mixed methods service evaluation of patient experiences of a real-world, deployed, managed service for CCE in Scotland. Two hundred and nine patients provided feedback via a survey about their experiences of the CCE service. Eighteen of these patients took part in a further telephone interview to capture more in-depth lived experiences to understand the barriers and opportunities for the further adoption and scaling up of the CCE service in a way that supports the patient experience and journey. Results: Patients overall perceived the CCE service to be of significant value (eg, mentioning reduced travel times, reduced waiting times, and freedom to complete the procedure at home as perceived benefits). Our findings also highlighted the importance of clear and accessible information (eg, what to expect and how to undertake the bowel preparation) and the need for managing expectations of patients (eg, being clear about when results will be received and what happens if a further colonoscopy is required). Conclusions: The findings led to recommendations for future implementations of managed CCE services in National Health Service (NHS) Scotland that could also apply more widely (United Kingdom and beyond) and at a greater scale (with more patients in more contexts). These include promoting CCE with, for, and among clinical teams to ensure adoption and success; capturing and understanding reasons why patients do and do not opt for CCE; providing clear information in a variety of appropriate ways to patients (eg, around the importance of bowel preparation instructions); improving the bowel preparation (this is not specific to CCE alone); providing flexible options for issuing and returning the kit (eg, dropping off at a pharmacy); and embedding formative evaluation within the service itself (eg, capturing patient-reported experiences via surveys in the information pack when the equipment is returned).