Success factors of growth-stage digital health companies: protocol for a systematic literature review
Pfitzer, E. C.; Bitomsky, L.; Nissen, M.; Kausch, C.; Kowatsch, T.
Show abstract
BackgroundThe healthcare industry is undergoing rapid transformation and progress, fueled by technological advances and the growing need for accessible, affordable, and high-quality healthcare services. While there has been significant progress in digitizing healthcare, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is still considerable untapped potential for digital therapeutics (DTx). According to a report by Bloomberg, the digital health market is projected to reach $1.5 trillion by 2030 (1). However, most ventures in the space struggle to gain traction and eventually stop operations. Also, the diverse regulatory guidelines across countries challenge the scalability of DTx. ObjectiveThe protocol described here outlines the methodology for a systematic review whichs objective is to identify factors that contribute to the successful scaling of digital health companies that have a validated product or service, i.e., growth-stage companies. A further objective is to highlight the key metrics used to quantify success in digital health companies. MethodWe will search business and scientific databases, including EBSCO, PubMed, ProQuest, and Scopus, summarize the key findings and highlight the specific success factors relevant to the Digital Health Technologies (DHT) industry. The quality of the selected studies will be assessed using the critical appraisal skills program (CASP) checklists. Expected outcomeThe literature reviews primary objective is to identify essential characteristics and recurring patterns that significantly contribute to success among growth-stage digital health companies. It will bridge the existing knowledge gap and provide stakeholders, including investors and entrepreneurs, with a valuable resource that supports informed decision-making and enhances the success of growth-stage digital health companies. OSF Registrationhttps://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UYJCA
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The NASSS (Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability) framework use over time: A scoping review 95%
- Defining Destigmatizing Design Guidelines for Use in Sexual Health-Related Digital Technologies: A Delphi Study 94%
- Benefits and Challenges of Using Virtual Primary Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: From Key Lessons to a Framework for Implementation 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- How the COVID-19 pandemic is favoring the adoption of digital technologies in healthcare: a literature review 96%
- Has the pandemic enhanced and sustained digital health-seeking behaviour? A big data interrupted time-series analysis of Google Trends 96%
- Improving Patient Engagement in Phase 2 Clinical Trials with a Trial-specific Patient Decision Aid (tPDA): A Development and Usability Study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Conceptualizing centers of excellence: A global evidence 94%
- The use of the positive deviance approach for healthcare system service improvement: A scoping review protocol 93%
- Protocol for a scoping review of the impact of digital assistive technologies on the quality of life for people with dementia 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Scoping Review Protocol on Integration of mobile-linked POC diagnostics in community-based healthcare: User Experience 95%
- Top-funded digital health companies offering lifestyle interventions for dementia prevention: Company overview and evidence analysis 93%
- Investigating the Nature of Open Science Practices Across Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Journals: An Audit 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Telemedicine Ready or Not? a cross-sectional assessment of telemedicine maturity of federally funded tertiary health institutions in Nigeria 93%
- The experiences of 33 national COVID-19 dashboard teams during the first year of the pandemic in the WHO European Region: a qualitative study 92%
- Validating a Clinical Decision Support System for Palliative Care using healthcare professionals’ insights 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.