Agile research to complement agile development: a proposal for an mHealth research lifecycle

Abstract

Mobile health (mHealth) technology is increasingly being used, but academic evaluations supporting its use are not keeping pace. This is partly due to the disconnect between the traditional pharmaceutical approach to product evaluation, with its incremental approach, and the flexible way in which mHealth products are developed. An important step to addressing these problems lies in establishing agile research methods that complement the agile development methodologies used to create modern digital health applications. We describe an mHealth research model that mirrors traditional clinical research methods in its attention to safety and efficacy, while also accommodating the rapid and iterative development and evaluation required to produce effective, evidence-based, and sustainable digital products. This approach consists of a project identification stage followed by four phases of clinical evaluation: Phase 1: User Experience Design, Development, & Alpha Testing; Phase 2: Beta testing; Phase 3: Clinical Trial Evaluation; and Phase 4: Post-Market Surveillance. These phases include sample gating questions and are adapted to accommodate the unique nature of digital product development.

Capturing Patient‐Reported Outcomes During the COVID‐19 Pandemic: Development of the COVID‐19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Patient Experience Survey

“…The collaboration was facilitated via Slack, an online team collaboration and messaging platform. The process of survey development used principles from "agile methodology," in which continued patient community involvement occurred throughout the survey process [8]. This methodology enabled rapid iteration of the survey questions to ensure focus on outcomes most relevant to the patient community, as well as issues of importance to the rheumatologists caring for them.…”

Physician attitudes towards—and adoption of—mobile health

“…[17][18][19] The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has developed new policies adapted to the rapid development cycles of medical software to encourage technological progress while protecting patients. 20,21 Under some of these regulatory frameworks, clearance is an assurance of safety rather than a marker of clinical utility. 22 Apps with low risk for patient harm, such as activity trackers, are not within the FDA's jurisdiction.…”

ACTsmart – development and feasibility of digital Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for adults with chronic pain

“…Within the present study the three first phases (0-2) of the mHealth Agile Development & Evaluation Lifecycle 25 were completed. In the present study phase zero will be described briefly, while phase one and two are described in more detail.…”

“…24 To ascertain that the intervention is user friendly, effective, and up to date, there is a need for an approach that combines the strengths of the industry's rapid development process and academia's theorybased approach and efficacy testing. The mHealth Agile Development & Evaluation Lifecycle 25 provides a framework for rapid and sustainable mHealth development, evaluation, and implementation.…”