Factors influencing smartwatch use and comfort with health data sharing: a sequential mixed-method study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Smartwatches have become ubiquitous for tracking health metrics. These data sets hold substantial potential for enhancing healthcare and public health initiatives; it may be used to track chronic health conditions, detect previously undiagnosed health conditions and better understand public health trends. By first understanding the factors influencing one's continuous use of the device, it will be advantageous to assess factors that may influence a person's willingness to share their individual data sets. This study seeks to comprehensively understand the factors influencing the continued use of these devices and people's willingness to share the health data they generate. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-section online survey of smartwatch users over the age of 18 will be conducted (n ≥200). The first section, based on the expectation-confirmation model, will assess factors influencing continued use of smartwatches while the second section will assess willingness to share the health data generated from these devices. Survey data will be analysed descriptively and based on structural equation modelling.Subsequently, six focus groups will be conducted to further understand the issues raised in the survey. Each focus group (n=6) will consist of three smartwatch users: a general practitioner, a public health specialist and an IT specialist. Young smartwatch users (aged 18-44) will be included in three of the focus groups and middle-aged smartwatch users (aged 45-64) will be included in the other three groups. This is to enhance comparison of opinions based on age groups. Data from the focus groups will be analysed using the microinterlocutor approach and an executive summary.After the focus group, participants will complete a brief survey to indicate any changes in their opinions resulting from the discussion. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results of this study will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and all associated data will be deposited in a relevant, publicly accessible data repository to ensure transparency and facilitate future research endeavours.This study was approved by the Social Research Ethic Committee (SREC), University College Cork-SREC/SOM/21062023/2.

Regulatory Standards and Guidance for the Use of Health Apps for Self-Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Health apps are increasingly recognized as crucial tools for enhancing health care delivery. Many countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa, can substantially benefit from using health apps to support self-management and thus help to achieve universal health coverage and the third sustainable development goal. However, most health apps published in app stores are of unknown or poor quality, which poses a risk to patient safety. Regulatory standards and guidance can help address this risk and promote patient safety. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to assess the regulatory standards and guidance for health apps supporting evidence-based best practices in sub-Saharan Africa with a focus on self-management. METHODS: A methodological framework for scoping reviews was applied. A search strategy was built and applied across the following databases, gray literature sources, and institutional websites: PubMed, Scopus, World Health Organization (WHO) African Index Medicus, OpenGrey, WHO Regional Office for Africa Library, ICTworks, WHO Directory of eHealth policies, HIS Strengthening Resource Center, International Telecommunication Union, Ministry of Health websites, and Google. The search covered the period between January 2005 and January 2024. The findings were analyzed using a deductive descriptive content analysis. The policy analysis framework was adapted and used to organize the findings. The Reporting Items for Stakeholder Analysis tool guided the identification and mapping of key stakeholders based on their roles in regulating health apps for self-management. RESULTS: The study included 49 documents from 31 sub-Saharan African countries. While all the documents were relevant for stakeholder identification and mapping, only 3 regulatory standards and guidance contained relevant information on regulation of health apps. These standards and guidance primarily aimed to build mutual trust; promote integration, inclusion, and equitable access to services; and address implementation issues and poor coordination. They provided guidance on systems quality, software acquisition and maintenance, security measures, data exchange, interoperability and integration, involvement of relevant stakeholders, and equitable access to services. To enhance implementation, the standards highlight that legal authority, coordination of activities, building capacity, and monitoring and evaluation are required. A number of stakeholders, including governments, regulatory bodies, funders, intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations, academia, and the health care community, were identified to play key roles in regulating health apps. CONCLUSIONS: Health apps have huge potential to support self-management in sub-Saharan Africa, but the lack of regulatory standards and guidance constitutes a major barrier. Hence, for these apps to be safely and effectively integrated into health care, more attention should be given to regulation. Learning from countries with effective regulations can help sub-Saharan Africa build a more robust and responsive regulatory system, ensuring the safe and beneficial use of health apps across the region. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025714.

Investigating the characteristics of health-related data collection tools used in randomised controlled trials in low-income and middle-income countries: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Health-related data collection tools, including digital ones, have become more prevalent across clinical studies in the last number of years. However, using digital data collection tools in low-income and middle-income countries presents unique challenges. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of the data collection tools currently being used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in low-resource settings and evaluate the tools based on the characteristics outlined in the modified Mobile Survey Tool framework. These include functionality, reliability, usability, efficiency, maintainability, portability, effectiveness, cost-benefit, satisfaction, freedom from risk and context coverage. This evidence may provide a guide to selecting a suitable data collection tool for researchers planning to conduct research in low-income and middle-income countries for future studies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Searches will be conducted in four electronic databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science and EMBASE. For inclusion, studies must be a RCT, mention a health-related data collection tool and conducted in a low- and middle-income country. Only studies with available full-text and written in English will be included. The search was restricted to studies published between January 2005 and June 2023. This systematic review will use the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) tool. Two review authors will screen the titles and abstracts of search results independently for inclusion. In the initial screening process, the full-text articles will be retrieved if the abstract contains limited information about the study. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion. If the disagreement cannot be resolved, a third author (JO'D) will adjudicate. The study selection process will be outlined in a PRISMA flow-diagram. Data will be analysed using a narrative synthesis approach. The included studies and their outcomes will be presented in a table. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected in this study. The findings from this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023405738.

Compliance of Type 2 Diabetes Applications to International Guidelines: Protocol for a Quantitative App Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is among the most common chronic conditions people live with across the world. While it can be managed to a substantial degree, it can result in significant complications. As such, easy access to accurate tools to aid diabetes management is useful in minimizing these complications. Mobile apps are highly accessible and widely used, but there is a gap in the literature examining their compliance with medical guidelines. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are to develop the Analysis of Diabetes Apps (ADA) checklist to evaluate apps' compliance to guidelines set by the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) on the treatment and management of type 2 diabetes; to assess type 2 diabetes apps in the Apple App Store and the Android Google Play Store, and their compliance with international guidelines using the ADA framework; and to compare the novel ADA checklist against both the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) tool kit and app ratings for each store. METHODS: We will develop a checklist based on the "IDF Clinical Practice Recommendations for Managing Type 2 Diabetes in Primary Care." Type 2 diabetes apps will be scraped from 6 countries' app stores using web scraping tools. These countries include Australia, Brazil, India, Nigeria, the United States, and the United Kingdom, which were selected based on the largest population of English-speaking people in each continent. The apps will be searched on the web-based scraper using the search terms "blood sugar," "diabetes," "glucose level," "insulin," "sugar level," and "type 2 diabetes." Apps will be excluded if they are paid or are not in English. The apps will be assessed using the ADA checklist to evaluate their compliance to the international diabetes guidelines. Once scored, the results will be analyzed with descriptive statistics. The most popular apps will be further analyzed using the MARS tool kit. The ADA checklist scores will then be compared to both the MARS tool kit score and app ratings for each store. RESULTS: The ADA checklist developed based on the IDF guidelines focuses on general information, risk factors, diagnosis, pharmacology, lifestyle modification, glycemic recommendations, and medications. The initial stress testing of the protocol resulted in 173 included apps. This will vary in the final search as the app stores are constantly changing. CONCLUSIONS: The protocol presents the development of a checklist to investigate the compliance of type 2 diabetes apps with international guidelines. The checklist will hopefully form the basis of a scoring system for future research on compliance of mobile apps with international guidelines. High standardization of the ADA checklist will make it a robust tool for people with diabetes and their health care providers alike in assessing type 2 diabetes apps in the future. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/48781.

Assessment of Clinical Information Quality in Digital Health Technologies: International eDelphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Digital health technologies (DHTs), such as electronic health records and prescribing systems, are transforming health care delivery around the world. The quality of information in DHTs is key to the quality and safety of care. We developed a novel clinical information quality (CLIQ) framework to assess the quality of clinical information in DHTs. OBJECTIVE: This study explored clinicians' perspectives on the relevance, definition, and assessment of information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework. METHODS: We used a systematic and iterative eDelphi approach to engage clinicians who had information governance roles or personal interest in information governance; the clinicians were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling techniques. Data were collected using semistructured online questionnaires until consensus was reached on the information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework. Responses on the relevance of the dimensions were summarized to inform decisions on retention of the dimensions according to prespecified rules. Thematic analysis of the free-text responses was used to revise definitions and the assessment of dimensions. RESULTS: Thirty-five clinicians from 10 countries participated in the study, which was concluded after the second round. Consensus was reached on all dimensions and categories in the CLIQ framework: informativeness (accuracy, completeness, interpretability, plausibility, provenance, and relevance), availability (accessibility, portability, security, and timeliness), and usability (conformance, consistency, and maintainability). A new dimension, searchability, was introduced in the availability category to account for the ease of finding needed information in the DHTs. Certain dimensions were renamed, and some definitions were rephrased to improve clarity. CONCLUSIONS: The CLIQ framework reached a high expert consensus and clarity of language relating to the information quality dimensions. The framework can be used by health care managers and institutions as a pragmatic tool for identifying and forestalling information quality problems that could compromise patient safety and quality of care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057430.

Framework to assess the quality of mHealth apps: a mixed-method international case study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) often recommend their patients to use a specific mHealth app as part of health promotion, disease prevention and patient self-management. There has been a significant growth in the number of HCPs downloading and using mobile health (mHealth) apps. Most mHealth apps that are available in app stores employ a 'star rating' system. This is based on user feedback on an app, but is highly subjective. Thus, the identification of quality mHealth apps which are deemed fit for purpose can be a difficult task for HCPs. Currently, there is no unified, validated standard guidelines for assessment of mHealth apps for patient safety, which can be used by HCPs. The Modified Enlight Suite (MES) is a quality assessment framework designed to provide a means for HCPs to evaluate mHealth apps before they are recommended to patients. MES was adapted from the original Enlight Suite for international use through a Delphi method, followed by preliminary validation process among a population predominantly consisting of medical students. This study aims to evaluate the applicability and validity of the MES, by HCPs, in low, middle and high income country settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MES will be evaluated through a mixed-method study, consisting of qualitative (focus group) and quantitative (survey instruments) research, in three target countries: Malawi (low income), South Africa (middle income) and Ireland (high income). The focus groups will be conducted through Microsoft Teams (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington, USA) and surveys will be conducted online using Qualtrics (Qualtrics International, Seattle, Washington, USA). Participants will be recruited through the help of national representatives in Malawi (Mzuzu University), South Africa (University of Fort Hare) and Ireland (University College Cork) by email invitation. Data analysis for the focus group will be by the means of thematic analysis. Data analysis for the survey will use descriptive statistics and use Cronbach alpha as an indicator of internal consistency of the MES. The construct validity of the mHealth app will be assessed by computing the confirmatory factor analysis using Amos. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval from the Social Research Ethics Committee (SREC) SREC/SOM/03092021/1 at University College Cork, Ireland, Malawi Research Ethics Committee (MREC), Malawi MZUNIREC/DOR/21/59 and Inter-Faculty Research Ethics Committee (IFREC) of University of Fort Hare (REC-2 70 710-028-RA). The results of the study will be disseminated through the internet, peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.

Modification and Validation of an mHealth App Quality Assessment Methodology for International Use: Cross-sectional and eDelphi Studies.

BACKGROUND: Over 325,000 mobile health (mHealth) apps are available to download across various app stores. However, quality assurance in this field of medicine remains relatively undefined. Globally, around 84% of the population have access to mobile broadband networks. Given the potential for mHealth app use in health promotion and disease prevention, their role in patient care worldwide is ever apparent. Quality assurance regulations both nationally and internationally will take time to develop. Frameworks such as the Mobile App Rating Scale and Enlight Suite have demonstrated potential for use in the interim. However, these frameworks require adaptation to be suitable for international use. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to modify the Enlight Suite, a comprehensive app quality assessment methodology, to improve its applicability internationally and to assess the preliminary validity and reliability of this modified tool in practice. METHODS: A two-round Delphi study involving 7 international mHealth experts with varied backgrounds in health, technology, and clinical psychology was conducted to modify the Enlight Suite for international use and to improve its content validity. The Modified Enlight Suite (MES) was then used by 800 health care professionals and health care students in Ireland to assess a COVID-19 tracker app in an online survey. The reliability of the MES was assessed using Cronbach alpha, while the construct validity was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis. RESULTS: The final version of the MES has 7 sections with 32 evaluating items. Of these items, 5 were novel and based on consensus for inclusion by Delphi panel members. The MES has satisfactory reliability with a Cronbach alpha score of .925. The subscales also demonstrated acceptable internal consistency. Similarly, the confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated a positive and significant factor loading for all 32 items in the MES with a modestly acceptable model fit, thus indicating the construct validity of the MES. CONCLUSIONS: The Enlight Suite was modified to improve its international relevance to app quality assessment by introducing new items relating to cultural appropriateness, accessibility, and readability of mHealth app content. This study indicates both the reliability and validity of the MES for assessing the quality of mHealth apps in a high-income country, with further studies being planned to extrapolate these findings to low- and middle-income countries.

Clinical information quality of digital health technologies: protocol for an international eDelphi study.

INTRODUCTION: Digital health technologies (DHTs) such as electronic health records, clinical decision support systems and electronic prescribing systems are widely used in healthcare. While adoption of DHTs can improve healthcare delivery, information quality (IQ) problems associated with DHTs can compromise quality and safety of care. The clinical information quality (CLIQ) framework for digital health is a novel approach to assessing the quality of clinical information from DHTs. This study aims to appraise the CLIQ framework by exploring clinicians' perspectives on the relevance, definition and assessment of IQ dimensions as defined in the framework. This study will adapt the CLIQ framework to the needs of clinical information users-the clinicians. The contextualised CLIQ framework will offer a pragmatic approach to assessing clinical information from DHTs and may help to forestall IQ problems that can compromise quality and safety of care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The electronic Delphi (eDelphi) approach will be used to engage a heterogeneous group of clinicians with patient-facing and/or information governance roles recruited through purposive and snowball sampling techniques. A semi-structured online questionnaire will be used to explore clinicians' perspectives on relevance, definition and assessment of IQ dimensions in the CLIQ framework. Survey responses on the relevance of dimensions will be summarised using descriptive statistics to inform decisions on retention of dimensions and termination of the study, based on pre-specified rules. Analysis of the free-text responses will be used to revise definition and assessment of dimensions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from the Imperial College Research Governance and Integrity Team (Imperial College Research Ethics Committee (ICREC) Reference number: 20IC6396). The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences.

Regulatory standards and guidance for the use of health applications for self-management in Africa: scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Despite health applications becoming ubiquitous and with enormous potential to facilitate self-management, regulatory challenges such as poor application quality, breach of data privacy and limited interoperability have impeded their full adoption. While many countries now have digital health-related policies/strategies, there is also a need for regulatory standards and guidance that address key regulatory challenges associated with the use of health applications. Currently, it is unclear the status of countries in Africa regarding regulatory standards and guidance that address the use of health applications.This protocol describes the process of conducting a scoping review which aims to investigate the extent to which regulatory standards and guidance address the use of health applications for self-management within the WHO African Region countries. METHODS: The review will follow the methodological framework for conducting a scoping study by Arksey and O'Malley (2005), and the updated methodological guidance for conducting a Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review. Given that regulatory standards and guidance are unlikely to be available in scientific databases, we will search Scopus, Google, OpenGrey, WHO Regional Office for Africa Library (AFROLIB), African Index Medicus (AIM), websites of WHO, ITU and Ministries of Health, repositories for digital health policies. We will also search the reference lists of included documents, and contact key stakeholders in the region. Results will be reported using descriptive qualitative content analysis based on the review objectives. The policy analysis framework by Walt and Gilson (1994) will be used to organise findings. A summary of the key findings will be presented using tables, charts and maps. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The collection of primary data is not anticipated in this study and hence ethical approval will not be required. The review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal while key findings will be shared with relevant organisations and/or presented at conferences.

Identification and Evaluation of Methodologies to Assess the Quality of Mobile Health Apps in High-, Low-, and Middle-Income Countries: Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been rapid growth in the availability and use of mobile health (mHealth) apps around the world. A consensus regarding an accepted standard to assess the quality of such apps has yet to be reached. A factor that exacerbates the challenge of mHealth app quality assessment is variations in the interpretation of quality and its subdimensions. Consequently, it has become increasingly difficult for health care professionals worldwide to distinguish apps of high quality from those of lower quality. This exposes both patients and health care professionals to unnecessary risks. Despite progress, limited understanding of the contributions of researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) exists on this topic. Furthermore, the applicability of quality assessment methodologies in LMIC settings remains relatively unexplored. OBJECTIVE: This rapid review aims to identify current methodologies in the literature to assess the quality of mHealth apps, understand what aspects of quality these methodologies address, determine what input has been made by authors from LMICs, and examine the applicability of such methodologies in LMICs. METHODS: This review was registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews). A search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus was performed for papers related to mHealth app quality assessment methodologies, which were published in English between 2005 and 2020. By taking a rapid review approach, a thematic and descriptive analysis of the papers was performed. RESULTS: Electronic database searches identified 841 papers. After the screening process, 52 papers remained for inclusion. Of the 52 papers, 5 (10%) proposed novel methodologies that could be used to evaluate mHealth apps of diverse medical areas of interest, 8 (15%) proposed methodologies that could be used to assess apps concerned with a specific medical focus, and 39 (75%) used methodologies developed by other published authors to evaluate the quality of various groups of mHealth apps. The authors in 6% (3/52) of papers were solely affiliated to institutes in LMICs. A further 15% (8/52) of papers had at least one coauthor affiliated to an institute in an LMIC. CONCLUSIONS: Quality assessment of mHealth apps is complex in nature and at times subjective. Despite growing research on this topic, to date, an all-encompassing appropriate means for evaluating the quality of mHealth apps does not exist. There has been engagement with authors affiliated to institutes across LMICs; however, limited consideration of current generic methodologies for application in LMIC settings has been identified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020205149; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=205149.

Information Quality Frameworks for Digital Health Technologies: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Digital health technologies (DHTs) generate a large volume of information used in health care for administrative, educational, research, and clinical purposes. The clinical use of digital information for diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic purposes has multiple patient safety problems, some of which result from poor information quality (IQ). OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to synthesize an IQ framework that could be used to evaluate the extent to which digital health information is fit for clinical purposes. METHODS: The review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Maternity and Infant Care, PsycINFO, Global Health, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Scopus, and HMIC (the Health Management Information Consortium) from inception until October 2019. Multidimensional IQ frameworks for assessing DHTs used in the clinical context by health care professionals were included. A thematic synthesis approach was used to synthesize the Clinical Information Quality (CLIQ) framework for digital health. RESULTS: We identified 10 existing IQ frameworks from which we developed the CLIQ framework for digital health with 13 unique dimensions: accessibility, completeness, portability, security, timeliness, accuracy, interpretability, plausibility, provenance, relevance, conformance, consistency, and maintainability, which were categorized into 3 meaningful categories: availability, informativeness, and usability. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review highlights the importance of the IQ of DHTs and its relevance to patient safety. The CLIQ framework for digital health will be useful in evaluating and conceptualizing IQ issues associated with digital health, thus forestalling potential patient safety problems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42018097142; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=97142. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024722.

Impact of mobile health applications on self-management in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: protocol of a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The emergence of mobile health (mHealth) solutions, particularly mHealth applications (apps), has shown promise in self-management of chronic diseases including type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). While majority of the previous systematic reviews have focused on the effectiveness of mHealth apps in improving treatment outcomes in patients with T2DM, there is a need to also understand how mHealth apps influence self-management of T2DM. This is crucial to ensure improvement in the design and use of mHealth apps for T2DM. This protocol describes how a systematic review will be conducted to determine in which way(s) mHealth apps might impact on self-management of T2DM. METHODS: The following electronic databases will be searched from inception to April 2019: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, PsycINFO, CINAHL, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, Health Management Information Consortium database, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov. The Cochrane risk of bias tool will be used to assess methodological quality. The primary outcome measures to be assessed will be 'change in blood glucose'. The secondary outcomes measures will be 'changes in cardiovascular risk markers' (including blood pressure, body mass index and blood lipids), and self-management practices. Others will include: health-related quality of life, economic data, social support, harms (eg, death or complications leading to hospital admissions or emergency unit attendances), death from any cause, anxiety or depression and adverse events (eg, hypoglycaemic episodes). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will not involve the collection of primary data and will not require ethical approval. The review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and a one-page summary of the findings will be shared with relevant organisations. Presentation of findings will be made at appropriate conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017071106.

Protocol for a systematic review and qualitative synthesis of information quality frameworks in eHealth.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic health (eHealth) applications have become a very large repository of health information which informs critical decisions relating to the diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of patients. Poor information quality (IQ) within eHealth may compromise patient safety. Evaluation of IQ in eHealth is therefore necessary to promote patient safety. An IQ framework specifies what aspects of information to assess and how to conduct the assessment. This systematic review aims to identify dimensions within existing IQ frameworks in eHealth and develop a new IQ framework for the assessment of eHealth. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: We will search Embase, Medline, PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Maternity and Infant Care, PsycINFO (American Psychological Association), Global Health, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Health Management Information Consortium and reference lists of relevant publications for articles published in English until November 2018. Studies will be selected by two independent reviewers based on prespecified eligibility criteria. Two reviewers will independently extract data in each eligible study using a prepiloted Microsoft Excel data extraction form. Thematic synthesis will be employed to define IQ dimensions and develop a new IQ framework for eHealth. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review as primary data will not be collected. The result of the review will be disseminated through publication in an academic journal and scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018097142.