Consolidated Reporting Guidelines for Prognostic and Diagnostic Machine Learning Models (CREMLS).

The number of papers presenting machine learning (ML) models that are being submitted to and published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research and other JMIR Publications journals has steadily increased. Editors and peer reviewers involved in the review process for such manuscripts often go through multiple review cycles to enhance the quality and completeness of reporting. The use of reporting guidelines or checklists can help ensure consistency in the quality of submitted (and published) scientific manuscripts and, for example, avoid instances of missing information. In this Editorial, the editors of JMIR Publications journals discuss the general JMIR Publications policy regarding authors' application of reporting guidelines and specifically focus on the reporting of ML studies in JMIR Publications journals, using the Consolidated Reporting of Machine Learning Studies (CREMLS) guidelines, with an example of how authors and other journals could use the CREMLS checklist to ensure transparency and rigor in reporting.

Best Practices for Using AI Tools as an Author, Peer Reviewer, or Editor.

The ethics of generative artificial intelligence (AI) use in scientific manuscript content creation has become a serious matter of concern in the scientific publishing community. Generative AI has computationally become capable of elaborating research questions; refining programming code; generating text in scientific language; and generating images, graphics, or figures. However, this technology should be used with caution. In this editorial, we outline the current state of editorial policies on generative AI or chatbot use in authorship, peer review, and editorial processing of scientific and scholarly manuscripts. Additionally, we provide JMIR Publications' editorial policies on these issues. We further detail JMIR Publications' approach to the applications of AI in the editorial process for manuscripts in review in a JMIR Publications journal.

Brilliant Ideas Can Come in All Sizes: Research Letters.

The Journal of Medical Internet Research is pleased to offer "Research Letter" as a new article type. Research Letters are similar to original and short paper types in that they report the original results of studies in a peer-reviewed, structured scientific communication. The Research Letter article type is optimal for presenting new, early, or sometimes preliminary research findings, including interesting observations from ongoing research with significant implications that justify concise and rapid communication.

Citation Advantage of Promoted Articles in a Cross-Publisher Distribution Platform: 36-Month Follow-up to a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: There are limited evidence-based strategies that have been shown to increase the rate at which peer-reviewed articles are cited. In a previously reported randomized controlled trial, we demonstrated that promotion of article links in an online cross-publisher distribution platform (TrendMD) persistently augments citation rates after 12 months, leading to a statistically significant 50% increase in citations relative to the control. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate if the citation advantage of promoted articles upholds after 36 months. METHODS: A total of 3200 published articles in 64 peer-reviewed journals across 8 subject areas were block randomized at the subject level to either the TrendMD group (n=1600) or the control group (n=1600) of the study. Articles were promoted in the TrendMD Network for 6 months. We compared the citation rates in both groups after 36 months. RESULTS: At 36 months, we found the citation advantage endured; articles randomized to TrendMD showed a 28% increase in mean citations relative to the control. The difference in mean citations at 36 months for articles randomized to TrendMD versus the control was 10.52 (95% CI 3.79-17.25) and was statistically significant (P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial to demonstrate how a postpublication article promotion intervention can be used to persistently augment citations of peer-reviewed articles. TrendMD is an efficient digital tool for knowledge translation and dissemination to targeted audiences to facilitate the uptake of research.

How to Fight an Infodemic: The Four Pillars of Infodemic Management.

In this issue of the Journal of Medical Internet Research, the World Health Organization (WHO) is presenting a framework for managing the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infodemic. Infodemiology is now acknowledged by public health organizations and the WHO as an important emerging scientific field and critical area of practice during a pandemic. From the perspective of being the first "infodemiologist" who originally coined the term almost two decades ago, I am positing four pillars of infodemic management: (1) information monitoring (infoveillance); (2) building eHealth Literacy and science literacy capacity; (3) encouraging knowledge refinement and quality improvement processes such as fact checking and peer-review; and (4) accurate and timely knowledge translation, minimizing distorting factors such as political or commercial influences. In the current COVID-19 pandemic, the United Nations has advocated that facts and science should be promoted and that these constitute the antidote to the current infodemic. This is in stark contrast to the realities of infodemic mismanagement and misguided upstream filtering, where social media platforms such as Twitter have advertising policies that sideline science organizations and science publishers, treating peer-reviewed science as "inappropriate content."

Celebrating 20 Years of Open Access and Innovation at JMIR Publications.

In this 20th anniversary theme issue, we are celebrating how JMIR Publications, an innovative publisher deeply rooted in academia and created by scientists for scientists, pioneered the open access model, is advancing digital health research, is disrupting the scholarly publishing world, and is helping to empower patients. All this has been made possible by the disintermediating power of the internet. And we are not done innovating: Our new series of "superjournals," called JMIRx, will provide a glimpse into what we see as the future and end goal in scholarly publishing: open science. In this model, the vast majority of papers will be published on preprint servers first, with "overlay" journals then competing to peer review and publish peer-reviewed "versions of record" of the best papers.

Gimme My Damn Data (and Let Patients Help!): The #GimmeMyDamnData Manifesto.

Ten years ago, in 2009, "e-Patient Dave" deBronkart delivered an influential keynote speech at the Medicine 2.0 conference in Toronto, organized by the Journal of Medical Internet Research's (JMIR's) editor-in-chief Gunther Eysenbach, who themed the conference around the topics of participation, openness, collaboration, apomediation, and social networking to improve health care for the 21st century-with patient participation being a major component. Many see this as a defining event within the participatory medicine movement, perhaps the beginning of a social movement, similar to the women's rights movement, with the title of Dave's keynote "Gimme my damn data" becoming a rallying cry and hashtag for patients demanding more access to their electronic health records. On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of JMIR (and 10 years after the keynote), we are celebrating the impact of the keynote for the participatory medicine movement and #gimmemydamndata (also #GMDD) by publishing the transcript of these initial conversations as a manifesto of patients' rights to access their data and their right to save their lives.

Nonpublication Rates and Characteristics of Registered Randomized Clinical Trials in Digital Health: Cross-Sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are key to advancing evidence-based medical research. The medical research literature has identified the impact of publication bias in clinical trials. Selective publication for positive outcomes or nonpublication of negative results could misdirect subsequent research and result in literature reviews leaning toward positive outcomes. Digital health trials face specific challenges, including a high attrition rate, usability issues, and insufficient formative research. These challenges may contribute to nonpublication of the trial results. To our knowledge, no study has thus far reported the nonpublication rates of digital health trials. OBJECTIVE: The primary research objective was to evaluate the nonpublication rate of digital health randomized clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Our secondary research objective was to determine whether industry funding contributes to nonpublication of digital health trials. METHODS: To identify digital health trials, a list of 47 search terms was developed through an iterative process and applied to the "Title," "Interventions," and "Outcome Measures" fields of registered trials with completion dates between April 1, 2010, and April 1, 2013. The search was based on the full dataset exported from the ClinlicalTrials.gov database, with 265,657 trials entries downloaded on February 10, 2018, to allow publication of studies within 5 years of trial completion. We identified publications related to the results of the trials through a comprehensive approach that included an automated and manual publication-identification process. RESULTS: In total, 6717 articles matched the a priori search terms, of which 803 trials matched our latest completion date criteria. After screening, 556 trials were included in this study. We found that 150 (27%) of all included trials remained unpublished 5 years after their completion date. In bivariate analyses, we observed statistically significant differences in trial characteristics between published and unpublished trials in terms of the intervention target condition, country, trial size, trial phases, recruitment, and prospective trial registration. In multivariate analyses, differences in trial characteristics between published and unpublished trials remained statistically significant for the intervention target condition, country, trial size, trial phases, and recruitment; the odds of publication for non-US-based trials were significant, and these trials were 3.3 (95% CI 1.845-5.964) times more likely to be published than US-based trials. We observed a trend of 1.5 times higher nonpublication rates for industry-funded trials. However, the trend was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In the domain of digital health, 27% of registered clinical trials results are unpublished, which is lower than nonpublication rates in other fields. There are substantial differences in nonpublication rates between trials funded by industry and nonindustry sponsors. Further research is required to define the determinants and reasons for nonpublication and, more importantly, to articulate the impact and risk of publication bias in the field of digital health trials.

The Optimization of an eHealth Solution (Thought Spot) with Transition-Aged Youth in Postsecondary Settings: Participatory Design Research.

BACKGROUND: Seventy percent of lifetime cases of mental illness emerge before the age of 24 years, but many youth are unable to access the support and services they require in a timely and appropriate way. With most youth using the internet, electronic health (eHealth) interventions are promising tools for reaching this population. Through participatory design research (PDR) engagement methods, Thought Spot, a Web- and mobile-based platform, was redeveloped to facilitate access to mental health services by transition-aged youth (aged 16-29 years) in postsecondary settings. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the process of engaging with postsecondary students through the PDR approaches, with the ultimate goal of optimizing the Thought Spot platform. METHODS: Consistent with the PDR approaches, five student-led workshops, attended by 41 individuals, were facilitated to obtain feedback regarding the platform's usability and functionality and its potential value in a postsecondary setting. Various creative engagement activities were delivered to gather experiences and opinions, including semistructured focus groups, questionnaires, personas, journey mapping, and a world café. Innovative technological features and refinements were also brainstormed during the workshops. RESULTS: By using PDR methods of engagement, participants knew that their ideas and recommendations would be applied. There was also an overall sense of respect and care integrated into each group, which facilitated an exchange of ideas and suggestions. CONCLUSIONS: The process of engaging with students to redesign the Thought Spot platform through PDR has been effective. Findings from these workshops will significantly inform new technological features within the app to enable positive help-seeking behaviors among students. These behaviors will be further explored in the second phase that involves a randomized controlled trial.

Lifesource XL-18 pedometer for measuring steps under controlled and free-living conditions.

The primary aim was to examine the criterion and construct validity and test-retest reliability of the Lifesource XL-18 pedometer (A&D Medical, Toronto, ON, Canada) for measuring steps under controlled and free-living activities. The influence of body mass index, waist size and walking speed on the criterion validity of XL-18 was also explored. Forty adults (35-74 years) performed a 6-min walk test in the controlled condition, and the criterion validity of XL-18 was assessed by comparing it to steps counted manually. Thirty-five adults participated in the free-living condition and the construct validity of XL-18 was assessed by comparing it to Yamax SW-200 (YAMAX Health & Sports, Inc., San Antonio, TX, USA). During the controlled condition, XL-18 did not significantly differ from criterion (P > 0.05) and no systematic error was found using Bland-Altman analysis. The accuracy of XL-18 decreased with slower walking speed (P = 0.001). During the free-living condition, Bland-Altman analysis revealed that XL-18 overestimated daily steps by 327 ± 118 than Yamax (P = 0.004). However, the absolute percent error (APE) (6.5 ± 0.58%) was still within an acceptable range. XL-18 did not differ statistically between pant pockets. XL-18 is suitable for measuring steps in controlled and free-living conditions. However, caution may be required when interpreting the steps recorded under slower speeds and free-living conditions.

A call for a moratorium on the .health generic top-level domain: preventing the commercialization and exclusive control of online health information.

In just a few weeks, the Internet could be expanded to include a new .health generic top-level domain name run by a for-profit company with virtually no public health credentials - unless the international community intervenes immediately. This matters to the future of global public health as the "Health Internet" has begun to emerge as the predominant source of health information for consumers and patients. Despite this increasing use and reliance on online health information that may have inadequate quality or reliability, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) recently announced it intends to move forward with an auction to award the exclusive, 10 year rights to the .health generic top-level domain name. This decision is being made over the protests of the World Medical Association, World Health Organization, and other stakeholders, who have called for a suspension or delay until key questions can be resolved. However, rather than engage in constructive dialogue with the public health community over its concerns, ICANN chose the International Chamber of Commerce-a business lobbying group for industries to adjudicate the .health concerns. This has resulted in a rejection of challenges filed by ICANN's own independent watchdog and others, such that ICANN's Board decided in June 2014 that there are "no noted objections to move forward" in auctioning the .health generic top-level domain name to the highest bidder before the end of the year. This follows ICANN's award of several other health-related generic top-level domain names that have been unsuccessfully contested. In response, we call for an immediate moratorium/suspension of the ICANN award/auction process in order to provide the international public health community time to ensure the proper management and governance of health information online.

The new health-related top-level domains are coming: will cureforcancer.health go to the highest bidder?

In 2012, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) opened a new round of applications for generic top-level domain (gTLD) names, receiving 1930 applications, of which at least 18 were related to health (eg, ".doctor", ".health", ".med"). The entry of new, commercial players applying to create health-related names reopens the debate on the role of international organizations, governments, non-governmental organizations, and other stakeholders regarding the safeguards and policies needed to protect consumers.

Social media: a review and tutorial of applications in medicine and health care.

BACKGROUND: Social media are dynamic and interactive computer-mediated communication tools that have high penetration rates in the general population in high-income and middle-income countries. However, in medicine and health care, a large number of stakeholders (eg, clinicians, administrators, professional colleges, academic institutions, ministries of health, among others) are unaware of social media's relevance, potential applications in their day-to-day activities, as well as the inherent risks and how these may be attenuated and mitigated. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a narrative review with the aim to present case studies that illustrate how, where, and why social media are being used in the medical and health care sectors. METHODS: Using a critical-interpretivist framework, we used qualitative methods to synthesize the impact and illustrate, explain, and provide contextual knowledge of the applications and potential implementations of social media in medicine and health care. Both traditional (eg, peer-reviewed) and nontraditional (eg, policies, case studies, and social media content) sources were used, in addition to an environmental scan (using Google and Bing Web searches) of resources. RESULTS: We reviewed, evaluated, and synthesized 76 articles, 44 websites, and 11 policies/reports. Results and case studies are presented according to 10 different categories of social media: (1) blogs (eg, WordPress), (2) microblogs (eg, Twitter), (3) social networking sites (eg, Facebook), (4) professional networking sites (eg, LinkedIn, Sermo), (5) thematic networking sites (eg, 23andMe), (6) wikis (eg, Wikipedia), (7) mashups (eg, HealthMap), (8) collaborative filtering sites (eg, Digg), (9) media sharing sites (eg, YouTube, Slideshare), and others (eg, SecondLife). Four recommendations are provided and explained for stakeholders wishing to engage with social media while attenuating risk: (1) maintain professionalism at all times, (2) be authentic, have fun, and do not be afraid, (3) ask for help, and (4) focus, grab attention, and engage. CONCLUSIONS: The role of social media in the medical and health care sectors is far reaching, and many questions in terms of governance, ethics, professionalism, privacy, confidentiality, and information quality remain unanswered. By following the guidelines presented, professionals have a starting point to engage with social media in a safe and ethical manner. Future research will be required to understand the synergies between social media and evidence-based practice, as well as develop institutional policies that benefit patients, clinicians, public health practitioners, and industry alike.

Promoting business and entrepreneurial awareness in health care professionals: lessons from venture capital panels at medicine 2.0 conferences.

There are few mechanisms that bring the academic and business worlds together in a way that would maximize the success of health technology (health tech) start-ups by increasing researchers' knowledge about how to operate in the business world. Existing solutions (eg, technology transfer offices and dual degree MD/MBA programs) are often unavailable to researchers from outside the institution or to those who have already completed their primary education, such as practicing physicians. This paper explores current solutions and offers a partial solution: include venture capital (VC) panels in medical conferences. These VC panels educate academics on 2 important and interconnected issues: how to "pitch" their ideas in the business world and what to consider when creating a company. In these sessions, academia-based start-up companies present their ideas before a VC panel composed of professional investors and receive feedback on their idea, business plan, and presentation techniques. Recent panel recommendations from Medicine 2.0 conferences fell into 7 categories: (1) the product, service, or idea you are developing into a company, (2) determine market forces and identify the target audience, (3) describe your competitive advantage, (4) the business plan, (5) current and future resources and capabilities, (6) legal aspects, and (7) general advice on the art of pitching. The academic and business literature validates many of these recommendations suggesting that VC panels may be a viable and cost-effective introduction to business and entrepreneurial education for physicians and other health care professionals. Panels benefit not only the presenting companies, but also the physicians, psychologists, and other health care professionals attending the session. Incorporating VC panels into academic conferences might also illuminate the need for incorporating relevant business training within academia.

Wikis and collaborative writing applications in health care: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative writing applications (eg, wikis and Google Documents) hold the potential to improve the use of evidence in both public health and health care. The rapid rise in their use has created the need for a systematic synthesis of the evidence of their impact as knowledge translation (KT) tools in the health care sector and for an inventory of the factors that affect their use. OBJECTIVE: Through the Levac six-stage methodology, a scoping review was undertaken to explore the depth and breadth of evidence about the effective, safe, and ethical use of wikis and collaborative writing applications (CWAs) in health care. METHODS: Multiple strategies were used to locate studies. Seven scientific databases and 6 grey literature sources were queried for articles on wikis and CWAs published between 2001 and September 16, 2011. In total, 4436 citations and 1921 grey literature items were screened. Two reviewers independently reviewed citations, selected eligible studies, and extracted data using a standardized form. We included any paper presenting qualitative or quantitative empirical evidence concerning health care and CWAs. We defined a CWA as any technology that enables the joint and simultaneous editing of a webpage or an online document by many end users. We performed qualitative content analysis to identify the factors that affect the use of CWAs using the Gagnon framework and their effects on health care using the Donabedian framework. RESULTS: Of the 111 studies included, 4 were experimental, 5 quasi-experimental, 5 observational, 52 case studies, 23 surveys about wiki use, and 22 descriptive studies about the quality of information in wikis. We classified them by theme: patterns of use of CWAs (n=26), quality of information in existing CWAs (n=25), and CWAs as KT tools (n=73). A high prevalence of CWA use (ie, more than 50%) is reported in 58% (7/12) of surveys conducted with health care professionals and students. However, we found only one longitudinal study showing that CWA use is increasing in health care. Moreover, contribution rates remain low and the quality of information contained in different CWAs needs improvement. We identified 48 barriers and 91 facilitators in 4 major themes (factors related to the CWA, users' knowledge and attitude towards CWAs, human environment, and organizational environment). We also found 57 positive and 23 negative effects that we classified into processes and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Although we found some experimental and quasi-experimental studies of the effectiveness and safety of CWAs as educational and KT interventions, the vast majority of included studies were observational case studies about CWAs being used by health professionals and patients. More primary research is needed to find ways to address the different barriers to their use and to make these applications more useful for different stakeholders.

The Role of ChatGPT, Generative Language Models, and Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: A Conversation With ChatGPT and a Call for Papers.

ChatGPT is a generative language model tool launched by OpenAI on November 30, 2022, enabling the public to converse with a machine on a broad range of topics. In January 2023, ChatGPT reached over 100 million users, making it the fastest-growing consumer application to date. This interview with ChatGPT is part 2 of a larger interview with ChatGPT. It provides a snapshot of the current capabilities of ChatGPT and illustrates the vast potential for medical education, research, and practice but also hints at current problems and limitations. In this conversation with Gunther Eysenbach, the founder and publisher of JMIR Publications, ChatGPT generated some ideas on how to use chatbots in medical education. It also illustrated its capabilities to generate a virtual patient simulation and quizzes for medical students; critiqued a simulated doctor-patient communication and attempts to summarize a research article (which turned out to be fabricated); commented on methods to detect machine-generated text to ensure academic integrity; generated a curriculum for health professionals to learn about artificial intelligence (AI); and helped to draft a call for papers for a new theme issue to be launched in JMIR Medical Education on ChatGPT. The conversation also highlighted the importance of proper "prompting." Although the language generator does make occasional mistakes, it admits these when challenged. The well-known disturbing tendency of large language models to hallucinate became evident when ChatGPT fabricated references. The interview provides a glimpse into the capabilities and limitations of ChatGPT and the future of AI-supported medical education. Due to the impact of this new technology on medical education, JMIR Medical Education is launching a call for papers for a new e-collection and theme issue. The initial draft of the call for papers was entirely machine generated by ChatGPT, but will be edited by the human guest editors of the theme issue.

Focusing on Digital Research Priorities for Advancing the Access and Quality of Mental Health.

Digital mental health solutions are now well recognized as critical to solving the global mental health crisis. As research accelerates, it is now clear that solutions ranging from computer-based therapy programs to virtual reality headsets and smartphone apps to large language model chatbots are of interest, feasible, and hold exciting potential to improve mental health. This research should now consider the next generation of scientific and clinical questions regarding if these new approaches are equitable, valid, effective, implementable, efficacious, and even cost-effective. This paper outlines several of the new frontiers for the next generation of research and introduces JMIR Publications' partnership with the Society of Digital Psychiatry to further advance these aims.

CONSORT-EHEALTH: improving and standardizing evaluation reports of Web-based and mobile health interventions.

BACKGROUND: Web-based and mobile health interventions (also called "Internet interventions" or "ehealth/mhealth interventions") are tools or treatments, typically behaviorally based, that are operationalized and transformed for delivery via the Internet or mobile platforms. These include electronic tools for patients, informal caregivers, healthy consumers, and health care providers. The "Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials" (CONSORT) was developed to improve the suboptimal reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). While broadly the CONSORT statement can be applied to provide guidance on how ehealth and mhealth trials should be reported, RCTs of web-based interventions pose very specific issues and challenges, in particular related to reporting sufficient details of the intervention to allow replication and theory-building. OBJECTIVE: To develop a checklist, dubbed CONSORT-EHEALTH (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials of Electronic and Mobile HEalth Applications and onLine TeleHealth), as an extension of the CONSORT statement that provides guidance for authors of ehealth and mhealth interventions. METHODS: A literature review was conducted, followed by a survey among ehealth experts and a workshop. RESULTS: An instrument and checklist was constructed as an extension of the CONSORT statement. The instrument has been adopted by the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) and authors of ehealth RCTs are required to submit an electronic checklist explaining how they addressed each subitem. CONCLUSIONS: CONSORT-EHEALTH has the potential to improve reporting and provides a basis for evaluating the validity and applicability of ehealth trials. Subitems describing how the intervention should be reported can also be used for non-RCT evaluation reports. As part of the development process, an evaluation component is essential, therefore feedback from authors will be solicited, and a before-after study will evaluate whether reporting has been improved.

Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact.

BACKGROUND: Citations in peer-reviewed articles and the impact factor are generally accepted measures of scientific impact. Web 2.0 tools such as Twitter, blogs or social bookmarking tools provide the possibility to construct innovative article-level or journal-level metrics to gauge impact and influence. However, the relationship of the these new metrics to traditional metrics such as citations is not known. OBJECTIVE: (1) To explore the feasibility of measuring social impact of and public attention to scholarly articles by analyzing buzz in social media, (2) to explore the dynamics, content, and timing of tweets relative to the publication of a scholarly article, and (3) to explore whether these metrics are sensitive and specific enough to predict highly cited articles. METHODS: Between July 2008 and November 2011, all tweets containing links to articles in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) were mined. For a subset of 1573 tweets about 55 articles published between issues 3/2009 and 2/2010, different metrics of social media impact were calculated and compared against subsequent citation data from Scopus and Google Scholar 17 to 29 months later. A heuristic to predict the top-cited articles in each issue through tweet metrics was validated. RESULTS: A total of 4208 tweets cited 286 distinct JMIR articles. The distribution of tweets over the first 30 days after article publication followed a power law (Zipf, Bradford, or Pareto distribution), with most tweets sent on the day when an article was published (1458/3318, 43.94% of all tweets in a 60-day period) or on the following day (528/3318, 15.9%), followed by a rapid decay. The Pearson correlations between tweetations and citations were moderate and statistically significant, with correlation coefficients ranging from .42 to .72 for the log-transformed Google Scholar citations, but were less clear for Scopus citations and rank correlations. A linear multivariate model with time and tweets as significant predictors (P < .001) could explain 27% of the variation of citations. Highly tweeted articles were 11 times more likely to be highly cited than less-tweeted articles (9/12 or 75% of highly tweeted article were highly cited, while only 3/43 or 7% of less-tweeted articles were highly cited; rate ratio 0.75/0.07 = 10.75, 95% confidence interval, 3.4-33.6). Top-cited articles can be predicted from top-tweeted articles with 93% specificity and 75% sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Tweets can predict highly cited articles within the first 3 days of article publication. Social media activity either increases citations or reflects the underlying qualities of the article that also predict citations, but the true use of these metrics is to measure the distinct concept of social impact. Social impact measures based on tweets are proposed to complement traditional citation metrics. The proposed twimpact factor may be a useful and timely metric to measure uptake of research findings and to filter research findings resonating with the public in real time.

A holistic framework to improve the uptake and impact of eHealth technologies.

BACKGROUND: Many eHealth technologies are not successful in realizing sustainable innovations in health care practices. One of the reasons for this is that the current development of eHealth technology often disregards the interdependencies between technology, human characteristics, and the socioeconomic environment, resulting in technology that has a low impact in health care practices. To overcome the hurdles with eHealth design and implementation, a new, holistic approach to the development of eHealth technologies is needed, one that takes into account the complexity of health care and the rituals and habits of patients and other stakeholders. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this viewpoint paper is to improve the uptake and impact of eHealth technologies by advocating a holistic approach toward their development and eventual integration in the health sector. METHODS: To identify the potential and limitations of current eHealth frameworks (1999-2009), we carried out a literature search in the following electronic databases: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Knowledge, PiCarta, and Google Scholar. Of the 60 papers that were identified, 44 were selected for full review. We excluded those papers that did not describe hands-on guidelines or quality criteria for the design, implementation, and evaluation of eHealth technologies (28 papers). From the results retrieved, we identified 16 eHealth frameworks that matched the inclusion criteria. The outcomes were used to posit strategies and principles for a holistic approach toward the development of eHealth technologies; these principles underpin our holistic eHealth framework. RESULTS: A total of 16 frameworks qualified for a final analysis, based on their theoretical backgrounds and visions on eHealth, and the strategies and conditions for the research and development of eHealth technologies. Despite their potential, the relationship between the visions on eHealth, proposed strategies, and research methods is obscure, perhaps due to a rather conceptual approach that focuses on the rationale behind the frameworks rather than on practical guidelines. In addition, the Web 2.0 technologies that call for a more stakeholder-driven approach are beyond the scope of current frameworks. To overcome these limitations, we composed a holistic framework based on a participatory development approach, persuasive design techniques, and business modeling. CONCLUSIONS: To demonstrate the impact of eHealth technologies more effectively, a fresh way of thinking is required about how technology can be used to innovate health care. It also requires new concepts and instruments to develop and implement technologies in practice. The proposed framework serves as an evidence-based roadmap.