Development of a decision-making checklist tool to support technology selection in digital health research.

Digital technologies offer researchers new approaches to test personalized and adaptive health interventions tailored to an individual. Yet, research leveraging technologies to capture personal health data involve technical and ethical consideration during the study design phase. No guidance exists to facilitate responsible digital technology selection for research purposes. A stakeholder-engaged and iterative approach was used to develop, test, and refine a checklist designed to aid researchers in selecting technologies for their research. First, stakeholders (n = 7) discussed and informed key decision-making domains to guide app/device selection derived from the American Psychiatric Association's framework that included safety, evidence, usability, and interoperability. We added "ethical principles" to the APA's hierarchical model and created a checklist that was used by a small group of behavioral scientists (n = 7). Findings revealed the "ethical principles" domains of respect, beneficence, and justice cut across each decision-making domains and the checklist questions/prompts were revised accordingly and can be found at thecore.ucsd.edu. The refined checklist contains four decision-making domains with prompts/questions and ethical principles embedded within the domains of privacy, risk/benefit, data management, and access/evidence. This checklist is the first step in leading the narrative of decision-making when selecting digital health technologies for research. Given the dynamic and rapidly evolving nature of digital health technology use in research, this tool will need to be further evaluated for usefulness in technology selection.

[1]  C. Bloss,et al.  NIH support of mobile, imaging, pervasive sensing, social media and location tracking (MISST) research: laying the foundation to examine research ethics in the digital age , 2018, npj Digital Medicine.

[2]  L. Andrews,et al.  Privacy Policies of Android Diabetes Apps and Sharing of Health Information. , 2016, JAMA.

[3]  John Torous,et al.  Data Security and Privacy in Apps for Dementia: An Analysis of Existing Privacy Policies. , 2017, The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.

[4]  Nadir Weibel,et al.  Reimagining Human Research Protections for 21st Century Science , 2016, Journal of Medical Internet Research.

[5]  Johnny Saldaña,et al.  The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers , 2009 .

[6]  Tasha Glenn,et al.  Privacy in the Digital World: Medical and Health Data Outside of HIPAA Protections , 2014, Current Psychiatry Reports.

[7]  Danielle E Jake-Schoffman,et al.  Methods for Evaluating the Content, Usability, and Efficacy of Commercial Mobile Health Apps , 2017, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[8]  J. Torous,et al.  A Hierarchical Framework for Evaluation and Informed Decision Making Regarding Smartphone Apps for Clinical Care. , 2018, Psychiatric services.

[9]  D. Kramer,et al.  Cybersecurity Concerns and Medical Devices: Lessons From a Pacemaker Advisory. , 2017, JAMA.

[10]  Josip Car,et al.  Unaddressed privacy risks in accredited health and wellness apps: a cross-sectional systematic assessment , 2015, BMC Medicine.

[11]  Camille Nebeker,et al.  Acceptance of Mobile Health in Communities Underrepresented in Biomedical Research: Barriers and Ethical Considerations for Scientists , 2017, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[12]  Nadir Weibel,et al.  Ethical and regulatory challenges of research using pervasive sensing and other emerging technologies: IRB perspectives , 2017, AJOB empirical bioethics.

[13]  John Torous,et al.  Navigating Ethics in the Digital Age: Introducing Connected and Open Research Ethics (CORE), a Tool for Researchers and Institutional Review Boards , 2017, Journal of medical Internet research.