{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["28(6)"],"submitter":["Godinho MA"],"pubmed_abstract":["<h4>Objective</h4>Toolkits are an important knowledge translation strategy for implementing digital health. We studied how toolkits for the implementation and evaluation of digital health were developed, tested, and reported.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We conducted a systematic review of toolkits that had been used, field tested or evaluated in practice, and published in the English language from 2009 to July 2019. We searched several electronic literature sources to identify both peer-reviewed and gray literature, and records were screened as per systematic review conventions.<h4>Results</h4>Thirteen toolkits were eventually identified, all of which were developed in North America, Europe, or Australia. All reported their intended purpose, as well as their development process. Eight of "],"journal":["Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA"],"pagination":["1298-1307"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC8200262"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"pubmed_title":["Toolkits for implementing and evaluating digital health: A systematic review of rigor and reporting."],"pmcid":["PMC8200262"],"pubmed_authors":["Godinho MA","Ansari S","Guo GN","Liaw ST"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Toolkits for implementing and evaluating digital health: A systematic review of rigor and reporting.","description":"<h4>Objective</h4>Toolkits are an important knowledge translation strategy for implementing digital health. We studied how toolkits for the implementation and evaluation of digital health were developed, tested, and reported.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We conducted a systematic review of toolkits that had been used, field tested or evaluated in practice, and published in the English language from 2009 to July 2019. We searched several electronic literature sources to identify both peer-reviewed and gray literature, and records were screened as per systematic review conventions.<h4>Results</h4>Thirteen toolkits were eventually identified, all of which were developed in North America, Europe, or Australia. All reported their intended purpose, as well as their development process. Eight of ","dates":{"release":"2021-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2021 Jun","modification":"2026-07-09T11:31:42.812Z","creation":"2026-07-09T10:51:17.067Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC8200262","cross_references":{"pubmed":["33619519"],"doi":["10.1093/jamia/ocab010"]}}