This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Scoping Review Protocols (184) Digital Health, Telehealth and e-Innovation in Clinical Settings (419) Clinical Informatics (1042)

Published on in Vol 12 (2023)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/45179, first published .
Conceptualizing Interprofessional Digital Communication and Collaboration in Health Care: Protocol for a Scoping Review

Conceptualizing Interprofessional Digital Communication and Collaboration in Health Care: Protocol for a Scoping Review

Conceptualizing Interprofessional Digital Communication and Collaboration in Health Care: Protocol for a Scoping Review

Authors of this article:

Kim Nordmann1 Author Orcid Image ;   Stefanie Sauter1 Author Orcid Image ;   Patricia Möbius-Lerch1 Author Orcid Image ;   Marie-Christin Redlich1 Author Orcid Image ;   Michael Schaller1 Author Orcid Image ;   Florian Fischer1 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by (1) Tweetations (3) Metrics

    Protocol

    Bavarian Research Center for Digital Health and Social Care, Kempten, Germany

    *these authors contributed equally

    Corresponding Author:

    Kim Nordmann, MGH

    Bavarian Research Center for Digital Health and Social Care

    Albert-Einstein-Straße 6

    Kempten, 87437

    Germany

    Phone: 49 831 870 235 0

    Email: kim.nordmann@hs-kempten.de


    Background: Effective communication and collaboration among health professionals are essential prerequisites for patient-centered care. However, interprofessional teams require suitable structures and tools to efficiently use their professional competencies in the service of high-quality care appropriate to the patient’s life situation. In this context, digital tools potentially enhance interprofessional communication and collaboration and lead to an organizationally, socially, and ecologically sustainable health care system. However, there is a lack of studies systematically assessing the critical factors for successfully implementing tools for digitally supported interprofessional communication and collaboration in the health care setting. Furthermore, an operationalization of this concept is missing.

    Objective: The aim of the proposed scoping review is to (1) identify factors influencing the development, implementation, and adoption processes of digital tools for interprofessional communication in the health care sector and (2) analyze and synthesize the (implicit) definition, dimensions, and concepts of digitally supported communication and collaboration among health care professionals in the health care setting. Studies focusing on digital communication and collaboration practices among health care professionals, including medical doctors and qualified medical assistants, in any health care setting will be included in this review.

    Methods: To address these objectives, an in-depth analysis of heterogeneous studies is needed, which is best achieved through a scoping review. Within this proposed scoping review, which adheres to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, 5 databases (SCOPUS, CINAHL, PubMed, Embase, and PsycInfo) will be searched for studies assessing digital communication and collaboration among various health care professionals in different health care settings. Studies focusing on health care providers or patient interaction through digital tools and non–peer-reviewed studies will be excluded.

    Results: Key characteristics of the studies included will be summarized through descriptive analysis, using diagrams and tables. We will synthesize and map the data and conduct a qualitative in-depth thematic analysis of definitions and dimensions of interprofessional digital communication and collaboration among health care and nursing professionals.

    Conclusions: Results from this scoping review may help in establishing digitally supported collaborations between various stakeholders in the health care setting and successfully implementing new forms of interprofessional communication and collaboration. This could facilitate the transition to better coordinated care and encourage the development of digital frameworks.

    International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/45179

    JMIR Res Protoc 2023;12:e45179

    doi:10.2196/45179

    Keywords

    digital technologies; interdisciplinary communication; intersectoral collaboration; nurse; physician; collaboration; interdisciplinary; scoping review; communication; interprofessional 


    Overview

    Efficient communication and collaboration among health care professionals are essential prerequisites for high-quality patient-centered care [1]. Among other things, this reduces readmission rates, improves patient health outcomes, increases time efficiency, partially improves clinical processes, and reduces health care costs [2-4].

    Interaction among health care professionals can be denominated as inter-, multi- or transprofessional. Although the definition of each term is not uniform, they decipher different degrees of collaboration between professions [5]. In this review, we will use the term “interprofessional communication and collaboration” (ICC) to refer to any type of interprofessional interaction among health care professionals, from pure information exchange to collaborative working.

    Key enablers for ICC are trust and respect, shared visions, as well as respectful and constant communication [6]. Barriers to ICC include a lack of funding and inadequate reimbursement, poor definitions of roles and responsibilities, insufficient training, a lack of time, hierarchical differences, and divergent communication styles [7-9]. Communication styles can be classified as either formally structured, such as team meetings or clinical rounds, or informal and opportunistic, such as hallway consultations [10].

    Within our scoping review, we focus on 1 specific part of ICC, which is characterized by the use of digital tools to support its effectiveness [9,11]. Research shows that digitally supported interprofessional communication and collaboration (DICC) lead to better division of tasks; improve the definition of responsibilities; increase the accessibility, efficiency, and safety of clinical information transfer; and partly replace time- and resource-consuming face-to-face multidisciplinary meetings [2,12-15]. Despite the benefits, implementation of DICC is complex and challenging, with studies assessing critical factors for the successful implementation and use of DICC being scarce [16].

    Although various definitions and conceptualizations of DICC are available in the literature, they largely neglect the technical dimension [16,17]. Greenhalgh et al [16] proposed the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework, which helps predict and evaluate the success of a technology-supported health or social care program. Successful implementation of DICC tools depends on the material and technical features, the knowledge generated, the support and knowledge needed to use the tools, as well as their substitutability and sustainability. A definition of DICC that includes these dimensions may guide research activities and support implementation projects, improving the probability of success for DICC. Therefore, we aim to conduct a scoping review on the (implicit) definition and dimensions of DICC across health care settings and its driving factors.

    A preliminary search of PubMed returned some systematic reviews on facilitators of and barriers to ICC [6,8,11,18] as well as a handful of scoping reviews on DICC in the primary health care system and for specific disease groups [19-24].

    However, no current or ongoing PROSPERO-registered systematic or scoping review on our research aim was identified in previous primary and review studies.

    Aim and Review Questions

    This review aims to (1) identify the factors that influence the development, implementation, and adoption processes of DICC and (2) elicit, analyze, and synthesize the (implicit) definition, dimensions, and concepts of DICC among health care professionals.

    Subquestions driving the analysis include the following:

    • How can DICC be operationalized?
    • How do DICC complement or interfere with existing ICC practices and pathways?
    • What barriers and solutions exist in the use of DICC?
    • How does the health care setting (eg, primary care or secondary care) impact key concepts of DICC practices?

    Search Strategy

    To be able to conduct an in-depth analysis of the literature, we will draw upon a broad range of heterogeneous types of primary research, which can best be obtained through a scoping review. To standardize the approach, we will adhere to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology [25].

    In accordance with the methodology, we adopted a 3-step approach for including articles. To start with, an initial screening of titles, abstracts, and index terms of relevant articles in PubMed was used to identify possible keywords and refine our final search strategy (Table 1). Specific instant messenger apps, such as WhatsApp and WeChat, were included in the search if they were demonstrably the most popular messenger apps in at least one country and were specific to the search, meaning we discarded Line and imo due to their ambiguity [26]. Table S1 (Multimedia Appendix 1) details the hits per search string in PubMed. In a second step, we adapted the search strategy to each database (ie, CINAHL, PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, and Scopus; Table S2 in Multimedia Appendix 1). Search strings were tested across all databases for conclusiveness. Our third step will be to manually screen all references of the included full texts for additional studies according to the snowball technique described by Greenhalgh et al [27]. Due to the rapid development of digital technologies, we will limit the studies included to those conducted from 2012 onward and include studies in English, French, German, Portuguese, and Spanish.

    Table 1. Search strategy on MEDLINE via PubMed and SCOPUS.
    Participant, concept, and context scheme#Search stringHits on PubMed (December 11, 2022)Hits on SCOPUS (December 11, 2022)
    Communication and collaboration among different health care provider groups1trans-disciplin*a OR transdisciplin*a OR cross-disciplinar*a OR crossdisciplinar*a OR inter-disciplin*a OR interdisciplin*a OR multi-disciplin*a OR multidisciplin*a OR multi-profession*a OR multiprofession*a OR inter-profession*a OR interprofession*a185,543392,636
     2“knowledge transfer”a OR information*a OR Health Information Exchangeb OR cooperat*a OR co-operat*a OR collaborat*a OR communicat*a2,089,5247,334,822
     3“integrated care”a OR Intersectoral Collaborationb OR Interdisciplinary Communicationb26,34333,558
     4(# 1 AND #2) OR 3#75,493144,245
    Digital tools5Health Information Systemsb OR Ambulatory Care Information Systemsb OR Information Technologyb OR technolog*a OR socio-techni*a OR sociotechni*a OR mHealtha OR eHealtha OR digit*a OR Electronic Health Recordsb OR Public Health Informaticsb OR messag*a OR messeng*a OR appa OR video*a OR phonea OR E-Mail*a OR “E Mails”a OR “E Mail”a OR Email*a OR “electronic mail”a OR “electronic mails”a OR “social media”a OR WhatsAppa OR Facebooka OR Vibera OR WeChata OR Telegrama OR Kakotalka1,254,0695,992,856
    Health care setting6Health*a OR hospital*a OR care*a OR caringa5,596,5047,922,757
    Combined7#4 AND #5 AND #6726111,056
    Filters8#7 + English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, German, from 2012 onward56948216

    aTitle or abstract.

    bMedical Subject Headings term for PubMed search string and title, abstract, or keyword for SCOPUS search string.

    Eligibility Criteria

    We defined several eligibility criteria based on formal issues, such as article type or language of publication, and issues related to the content of the manuscript, such as participants and context. These eligibility criteria are listed in Table 2 and described in detail below.

    Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
    FeatureInclusion criteriaExclusion criteria
    Article typeAny of the following published in a peer-reviewed journal:
    • Primary research approach and study design
    • Opinion pieces
    • Guidelines
    • Reviews
    • Meta-analyses
    • Meta-syntheses
    • Unpublished studies
    • Non–peer-reviewed research papers
    • Grey literature
    • Conference abstracts
    • Editorials
    • Book chapters
    • Records for which we are unable to obtain the full text
    • Studies that focus on students of health care professions
    Language
    • English
    • French
    • German
    • Spanish
    • Portuguese
    • All other languages
    Participants
    • DICCa among health care professionals, including medical doctors and nursing staff
    • Studies focusing on DICC between patient groups and health care practitioners
    • Studies focusing on individuals in the same health care profession within the same setting
    Concept
    • DICC involving either at least two different groups of health care professionals
    • DICC among health care professionals working in similar roles but in different health care settings
    • All other DICC among health care professionals
    Context
    • Any geographic and demographic health care setting
    		N/Ab

    aDICC: digitally supported interprofessional communication and collaboration.

    bN/A: not applicable.

    Participants

    The scoping review will include studies that focus on DICC among health care professionals, including medical doctors and nursing staff. Studies focusing on DICC between patient groups and health care practitioners as well as among individuals of the same health care profession within the same setting will be excluded.

    Concept

    We will consider DICC either involving at least two different groups of health care professionals or among health care professionals working in similar roles but in different health care settings.

    Context

    The study will include any geographic and demographic health care setting, as understandings of DICC may vary among different groups and settings, such as primary and secondary health care systems. We will include sources, but not limit them to such, assessing the implementation, piloting, and adoption of new DICCs.

    Types of Sources

    We will consider any type of primary research approach and study design, opinion pieces, guidelines, reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses published in a peer-reviewed journal. We will not include any unpublished studies, non–peer-reviewed research papers, or grey literature. We will further exclude conference abstracts, editorials, and book chapters, as well as all records for which we are unable to obtain the full text. Furthermore, studies that focus on students of health care professions will be excluded.

    Study or Source of Evidence Selection

    For screening, review, and data extraction, the web-based review manager Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation) will be used. We will upload all identified records and remove duplicates. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, all authors will independently screen the title and abstract of the first 50 records sorted by first author’s last name. Any discrepancies will be discussed to ensure a uniform understanding of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All remaining records will be screened by 2 independent reviewers. Potentially relevant sources will be retrieved in full, and their details will be imported into Covidence. Two independent researchers will assess the full text against the inclusion criteria and note reasons for exclusion. Any discrepancies between reviewers’ decisions will be settled by an additional reviewer throughout all stages of the screening process. The results of the search and the study inclusion process will be reported in full in the final scoping review report and presented in a PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) flow diagram [28].

    Data Extraction

    Data will be extracted from all included records by 1 reviewer using MAXQDA (version 2022; CERBI GmbH). Specific categories for data extraction are predefined (Table 3) and include details about the study setting, participants, and key findings relevant to the review questions. The draft data extraction tool will be modified and revised as necessary during the process of data extraction. All modifications will be detailed in the scoping review.

    We will extract data for sources that define DICC based on another reference (“secondary record”) into a second data extraction sheet—if the secondary record is available to the researcher. No further inclusion or exclusion criteria will be applied to secondary records.

    Table 3. Categories for data extraction.
    CategoryItem
    Source details
    • Journal
    • Year
    • Country of study setting
    • Study type
    Details or results extracted from source of evidence
    • Aim or purpose
    • Definitions (communication, collaboration, and digital tool)
    • Health care setting
    • Participants
    • NASSSa framework:
      • Domain 1: the condition or illness
      • Domain 2: the technology
      • Domain 3: the value proposition
      • Domain 4: the adopter system
      • Domain 5: the organization
      • Domain 6: the wider context
      • Domain 7: embedding and adaptation over time
    • Other remarkable results

    aNASSS: nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability.

    Analysis

    The NASSS framework will be used as the basis for data analysis [16,17]. It consists of 7 domains, as follows: condition or illness, technology, value proposition, adopter system (intended users), organization(s), and wider context (especially regulatory, legal, and policy issues). The seventh domain, which is crosscutting, considers how the domains interact and change over time [16]. Through the NASSS framework, researchers can identify and explain the complex manifestations in technology-supported change efforts. Using the dimensions of the NASSS framework as predefined analytical themes, we will analyze the extracted data following a thematic analysis approach [29]. If necessary, we will inductively establish new themes or subthemes alongside the data analysis process.


    We will characterize the extracted data of all primary and secondary records by means of descriptive analysis, using diagrams and tables, accompanied by a narrative account of the findings, with a focus on the questions of this scoping review. A qualitative in-depth thematic analysis of definitions, dimensions, and concepts will be carried out, and data will be synthesized and mapped.

    The scoping review was initiated in October 2022 with a protocol. Screening started in December 2022 and the analysis will be concluded in August 2023. We expect to submit the final scoping review manuscript by October 2023


    Contribution to Digital Health

    The definitions and dimensions identified might have the potential to assist in the design, development, implementation, and evaluation process of DICC. They might further aid in understanding the barriers encountered in interprofessional use of DICC and identifying solutions. Furthermore, the results might help to advance new forms of interprofessional communication and to establish collaborations among different stakeholders in the health care setting. This might support a transition toward more coordinated care and help create digital frameworks for integrated patient care. Furthermore, the results might inform stakeholders from different backgrounds, including health care providers, health authorities and management staff, as well as entities developing DICCs.

    Limitations

    Our results will need to be interpreted with caution, as our search is limited in terms of language and publication time, which may have led to the exclusion of relevant literature. However, we deem the inclusion of manuscripts written in one of five languages to be quite extensive. In addition, we will not include any grey literature, as we want to address the current gaps in scientific literature. However, including non-peer-reviewed interventions and experiences assessing DICCs may provide further insights.

    Conclusions

    To the best of our knowledge, this is the first scoping review synthesizing definitions and dimensions of DICC among health care professionals as described in peer-reviewed studies. Closing this definition gap will provide a differentiated definition system, informing future research activities and implementation projects alike. We additionally expect to identify areas that merit further research in the form of primary or review studies.

    Acknowledgments

    This study is undertaken without external funding.

    Data Availability

    All data supporting the results of the scoping review will be reported in the manuscript, and the entire raw data sets that support the findings will be made available by the authors.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Supplementary material.

    DOCX File , 29 KB
    1. van Dongen JJJ, Lenzen SA, van Bokhoven MA, Daniëls R, van der Weijden T, Beurskens A. Interprofessional collaboration regarding patients' care plans in primary care: a focus group study into influential factors. BMC Fam Pract. May 28, 2016;17:58. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Oostra DL, Fierkens C, Alewijnse MEJ, Olde Rikkert MGM, Nieuwboer MS, Perry M. Implementation of interprofessional digital communication tools in primary care for frail older adults: an interview study. J Interprof Care. Jul 21, 2022;37(6):362-370. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Tsakitzidis G, Timmermans O, Callewaert N, Verhoeven V, Lopez-Hartmann M, Truijen S, et al. Outcome indicators on interprofessional collaboration interventions for elderly. Int J Integr Care. May 16, 2016;16(2):1-17. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Reeves S, Pelone F, Harrison R, Goldman J, Zwarenstein M. Interprofessional collaboration to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Jun 22, 2017;6:CD000072. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Sell K, Hommes F, Fischer F, Arnold L. Multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinarity within the public health workforce: a scoping review to assess definitions and applications of concepts. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Sep 01, 2022;19(17):10902. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Johnson JM, Hermosura BJ, Price SL, Gougeon L. Factors influencing interprofessional team collaboration when delivering care to community-dwelling seniors: a metasynthesis of Canadian interventions. J Interprof Care. 2021;35(3):376-382. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Doornebosch AJ, Smaling HJA, Achterberg WP. Interprofessional collaboration in long-term care and rehabilitation: a systematic review. J Am Med Dir Assoc. Jan 2022;23(5):764-777.e2. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Rawlinson C, Carron T, Cohidon C, Arditi C, Hong QN, Pluye P, et al. An overview of reviews on interprofessional collaboration in primary care: barriers and facilitators. Int J Integr Care. Jun 22, 2021;21(2):32. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Foronda C, MacWilliams B, McArthur E. Interprofessional communication in healthcare: an integrative review. Nurse Educ Pract. Jul 2016;19:36-40. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Brown JB, Lewis L, Ellis K, Stewart M, Freeman TR, Kasperski MJ. Mechanisms for communicating within primary health care teams. Can Fam Physician. Dec 2009;55(12):1216-1222. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    11. Barr N, Vania D, Randall G, Mulvale G. Impact of information and communication technology on interprofessional collaboration for chronic disease management: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. Oct 2017;22(4):250-257. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Lyngstad M, Hofoss D, Grimsmo A, Hellesø R. Predictors for assessing electronic messaging between nurses and general practitioners as a useful tool for communication in home health care services: a cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. Feb 17, 2015;17(2):e47. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Munro AJ, Swartzman S. What is a virtual multidisciplinary team (vMDT)? Br J Cancer. Jun 11, 2013;108(12):2433-2441. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Stille CJ, Jerant A, Bell D, Meltzer D, Elmore JG. Coordinating care across diseases, settings, and clinicians: a key role for the generalist in practice. Ann Intern Med. Apr 19, 2005;142(8):700-708. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Finney Rutten LJ, Agunwamba AA, Greene SM, Mazor KM, Ebbert JO, St Sauver JL, et al. Enabling patient-centered communication and care through health information technology. J Healthc Commun. Dec 04, 2014;7(4):255-261. [CrossRef]
    16. Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, Lynch J, Hughes G, A'Court C, et al. Beyond adoption: a new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. J Med Internet Res. Nov 01, 2017;19(11):e367. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Greenhalgh T, Maylor H, Shaw S, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, Betton V, et al. The NASSS-CAT tools for understanding, guiding, monitoring, and researching technology implementation projects in health and social care: protocol for an evaluation study in real-world settings. JMIR Res Protoc. May 13, 2020;9(5):e16861. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Xyrichis A, Lowton K. What fosters or prevents interprofessional teamworking in primary and community care? A literature review. Int J Nurs Stud. Jan 2008;45(1):140-153. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Janssen A, Brunner M, Keep M, Hines M, Nagarajan SV, Kielly-Carroll C, et al. Interdisciplinary eHealth practice in cancer care: a review of the literature. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Oct 25, 2017;14(11):1289. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Tahsin F, Armas A, Kirakalaprathapan A, Cunningham H, Kadu M, Sritharan J, et al. Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) enabling integrated primary care for complex patients: a protocol for a scoping review. Syst Rev. Sep 07, 2022;11(1):193. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Tian Y, Zhang Y, Wang S, Cheng Q, Meng L. Integrated care for older people based on information and communication technology: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. Jul 21, 2022;12(7):e061011. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Tang CJ, Chan SW, Zhou WT, Liaw SY. Collaboration between hospital physicians and nurses: an integrated literature review. Int Nurs Rev. Sep 2013;60(3):291-302. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Mulvale G, Embrett M, Razavi SD. 'Gearing Up' to improve interprofessional collaboration in primary care: a systematic review and conceptual framework. BMC Fam Pract. Jul 20, 2016;17:83. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Sangaleti C, Schveitzer MC, Peduzzi M, Zoboli ELCP, Soares CB. Experiences and shared meaning of teamwork and interprofessional collaboration among health care professionals in primary health care settings: a systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. Nov 2017;15(11):2723-2788. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement. Mar 2021;19(1):3-10. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. WhatsApp, WeChat, Facebook Messenger, and more: global usage of messaging apps and statistics. Sinch Engage. URL: https://www.messengerpeople.com/global-messenger-usage-statistics/ [accessed 2023-06-14]
    27. Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ. Nov 05, 2005;331(7524):1064-1065. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. Oct 02, 2018;169(7):467-473. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101. [CrossRef]

    ‎
    DICC: digitally supported interprofessional communication and collaboration
    ICC: interprofessional communication and collaboration
    NASSS: nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability
    PRISMA-ScR: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews

    Edited by A Mavragani; submitted 19.12.22; peer-reviewed by N Finn, N Strutz; comments to author 02.03.23; revised version received 14.04.23; accepted 29.05.23; published 26.06.23.

    Copyright

    ©Kim Nordmann, Stefanie Sauter, Patricia Möbius-Lerch, Marie-Christin Redlich, Michael Schaller, Florian Fischer. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 26.06.2023.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Research Protocols, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.researchprotocols.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.