You cant manage what you cant imagine: The Digital Health Checklist-Risk Management (DHC-RM) Tool to enhance participant protections in digital health research
Card, A. J.; Vital, D.; Nebeker, C.
Show abstract
Digital health technologies are powerful-enhancing data collection, participant engagement, and personalized health interventions-yet their rapid proliferation has outpaced guidance for research participant protection. Current practice assists researchers in identifying risks but provides limited support for comprehensive risk management. To address this gap, we developed the Digital Health Checklist-Risk Management (DHC-RM) Tool, which integrates the established Digital Health Checklist with approaches from safety risk management. We conducted a study (n=40) comparing the DHC-RM Tool with current practice using a randomized experimental difference-in-differences design. Primary outcomes were the quantity, variety, and novelty of risks identified; secondary outcomes were the same constructs applied to risk control development. Compared with current practice, use of the DHC-RM Tool resulted in dramatically improved performance across all primary outcomes. Users identified on average 14.7 additional risks (compared to baseline) versus 0.26 in the control group and a higher number of risks in each of six pre-identified risk domains. Half of all distinct risks identified in the comparison phase were identified exclusively using the tool. The tool also improved risk control design, producing 9.63 additional risk control strategies per participant compared with 0.15 for current practice and yielding substantially greater novelty and variety. User feedback was also positive: 75% of participants reported they would use the tool again, citing its structured workflow, just-in-time examples, improved insight into risks, and its value for IRB communication. Suggestions for refinement focused primarily on expanding training examples and providing additional support for risk control development. The DHC-RM Tool significantly improves risk management practice in digital health research. By embedding structured, ethics-informed risk management into digital health research design, the DHC-RM Tool has the potential to improve participant protection while also streamlining ethics approval. Author SummaryDigital health research can put participants (and others) at risk in ways that dont always occur to the researchers who are designing a study. Researchers also face challenges in prioritizing risks and coming up with ideas to reduce those risks. We developed a new approach, the Digital Health Checklist - Risk Management Tool (DHC-RM Tool), to give researchers the support they need to identify, assess, and address research participant risks in this fast-moving field. Our experimental study found that use of the DHC-RM Tool led to a very large improvement in how well researchers managed the risks of digital health research studies. Using the toolkit, they were able to identify more risks than they identified using current practice-including risks they would not otherwise have considered. They were also able to come up with more changes to reduce the risks associated with digital health research studies, including changes they would not otherwise have considered. Those who used the toolkit found it beneficial and easy to use. The DHC-RM Tool fills an important gap in the science and practice of participant protection in digital health research.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical code sets and the problem of redundancy in code set repositories 95%
- Development of the AD F ICE_IT clinical decision support system to assist deprescribing of fall-risk increasing drugs: A user-centered design approach 94%
- Evaluating user experience with immersive technology in simulation-based education: a modified Delphi study with qualitative analysis 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Improving Patient Engagement in Phase 2 Clinical Trials with a Trial-specific Patient Decision Aid (tPDA): A Development and Usability Study 96%
- Understanding how the design and implementation of Online Consultations influence primary care outcomes: Systematic review of evidence with recommendations for designers, providers, and researchers 95%
- Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based Chatbots in Promoting Health Behavioral Changes: A Systematic Review 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Defining Destigmatizing Design Guidelines for Use in Sexual Health-Related Digital Technologies: A Delphi Study 96%
- The NASSS (Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability) framework use over time: A scoping review 95%
- Ethical review of clinical research with generative AI: Evaluating ChatGPT’s accuracy and reproducibility 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Connecting Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Challenges: Findings from a Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Consultation 96%
- Cracking the Code: A Scoping Review to Unite Disciplines in Tackling Legal Issues in Health Artificial Intelligence 93%
- Measures of socioeconomic advantage are not independent predictors of support for healthcare AI: subgroup analysis of a national Australian survey 93%
"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.