Dataset Information

Effect of telehealth on quality of life and psychological outcomes over 12 months (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested study of patient reported outcomes in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the effect of second generation, home based telehealth on health related quality of life, anxiety, and depressive symptoms over 12 months in patients with long term conditions.

Design

A study of patient reported outcomes (the Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study; baseline n=1573) was nested in a pragmatic, cluster randomised trial of telehealth (the Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth trial, n=3230). General practice was the unit of randomisation, and telehealth was compared with usual care. Data were collected at baseline, four months (short term), and 12 months (long term). Primary intention to treat analyses tested treatment effectiveness; multilevel models controlled for clustering by general practice and a range of covariates. Analyses were conducted for 759 participants who completed questionnaire measures at all three time points (complete case cohort) and 1201 who completed the baseline assessment plus at least one other assessment (available case cohort). Secondary per protocol analyses tested treatment efficacy and included 633 and 1108 participants in the complete case and available case cohorts, respectively.

Setting

Provision of primary and secondary care via general practices, specialist nurses, and hospital clinics in three diverse regions of England (Cornwall, Kent, and Newham), with established integrated health and social care systems.

Participants

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, or heart failure recruited between May 2008 and December 2009.

Main outcome measures

Generic, health related quality of life (assessed by physical and mental health component scores of the SF-12, and the EQ-5D), anxiety (assessed by the six item Brief State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), and depressive symptoms (assessed by the 10 item Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale).

Results

In the intention to treat analyses, differences between treatment groups were small and non-significant for all outcomes in the complete case (0.480 ≤ P ≤ 0.904) or available case (0.181 ≤ P ≤ 0.905) cohorts. The magnitude of differences between trial arms did not reach the trial defined, minimal clinically important difference (0.3 standardised mean difference) for any outcome in either cohort at four or 12 months. Per protocol analyses replicated the primary analyses; the main effect of trial arm (telehealth v usual care) was non-significant for any outcome (complete case cohort 0.273 ≤ P ≤ 0.761; available case cohort 0.145 ≤ P ≤ 0.696).

Conclusions

Second generation, home based telehealth as implemented in the Whole Systems Demonstrator Evaluation was not effective or efficacious compared with usual care only. Telehealth did not improve quality of life or psychological outcomes for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, or heart failure over 12 months. The findings suggest that concerns about potentially deleterious effect of telehealth are unfounded for most patients.

Trial registration

ISRCTN43002091.

SUBMITTER: Cartwright M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3582704 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMuch is written about the promise of telehealth and there is great enthusiasm about its potential. However, many studies of telehealth do not meet orthodox quality standards and there are few studies examining quality of life in diabetes as an outcome.Objective To assess the impact of home-based telehealth (remote monitoring of physiological, symptom and self-care behavior data for long-term conditions) on generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life, anxiety, and depressive symptoms over 12 months in patients with diabetes. Remote monitoring provides the potential to improve quality of life, through the reassurance it provides patients.MethodsThe study focused on participant-reported outcomes of patients with diabetes within the Whole Systems Demonstrator (WSD) Telehealth Questionnaire Study, nested within a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial of telehealth (the WSD Telehealth Trial), held across 3 regions of England. Telehealth was compared with usual-care, with general practice as the unit of randomization. Participant-reported outcome measures (Short-Form 12, EuroQual-5D, Diabetes Health Profile scales, Brief State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale) were collected at baseline, short-term (4 months) and long-term (12months) follow-ups. Intention-to-treat analyses testing treatment effectiveness, were conducted using multilevel models controlling for practice clustering and a range of covariates. Analyses assumed participants received their allocated treatment and were conducted for participants who completed the baseline plus at least one follow-up assessment (n=317).Results Primary analyses showed differences between telehealth and usual care were small and only reached significance for 1 scale (diabetes health profile-disinhibited eating, P=.006). The magnitude of differences between trial arms did not reach the trial-defined minimal clinically important difference of 0.3 standard deviations for most outcomes. Effect sizes (Hedge's g) ranged from 0.015 to 0.143 for Generic quality of life (QoL) measures and 0.018 to 0.394 for disease specific measures.ConclusionsSecond generation home-based telehealth as implemented in the WSD evaluation was not effective in the subsample of people with diabetes. Overall, telehealth did not improve or have a deleterious effect quality of life or psychological outcomes for patients with diabetes over a 12-month period.

Project description:BackgroundTelehealth is increasingly used in the care of people with long term conditions. Whilst many studies look at the impacts of the technology on hospital use, few look at how it changes contacts with primary care professionals. The aim of this paper was to assess the impacts of home-based telehealth interventions on general practice contacts.MethodSecondary analysis of data from a Department of Health funded cluster-randomised trial with 179 general practices in three areas of England randomly assigned to offer telehealth or usual care to eligible patients. Telehealth included remote exchange of vitals signs and symptoms data between patients and healthcare professionals as part of the continuing management of patients. Usual care reflected the range of services otherwise available in the sites, excluding telehealth. Anonymised data from GP systems were used to construct person level histories for control and intervention patients. We tested for differences in numbers of general practitioner and practice nurse contacts over twelve months and in the number of clinical readings recorded on general practice systems over twelve months.Results3,230 people with diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or heart failure were recruited in 2008 and 2009. 1219 intervention and 1098 control cases were available for analysis. No statistically significant differences were detected in the numbers of general practitioner or practice nurse contacts between intervention and control groups during the trial, or in the numbers of clinical readings recorded on the general practice systems.ConclusionsTelehealth did not appear associated with different levels of contact with general practitioners and practice nurses. We note that the way that telehealth impacts on primary care roles may be influenced by a number of other features in the health system. The challenge is to ensure that these systems lead to better integration of care than fragmentation.Trial registration numberInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register ISRCTN43002091.

Project description:BackgroundAcute Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with new-onset cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes mellitus (DM), but it is not known whether COVID-19 has long-term impacts on cardiometabolic outcomes. This study aimed to determine whether the incidence of new DM and CVDs are increased over 12 months after COVID-19 compared with matched controls.Methods and findingsWe conducted a cohort study from 2020 to 2021 analysing electronic records for 1,356 United Kingdom family practices with a population of 13.4 million. Participants were 428,650 COVID-19 patients without DM or CVD who were individually matched with 428,650 control patients on age, sex, and family practice and followed up to January 2022. Outcomes were incidence of DM and CVD. A difference-in-difference analysis estimated the net effect of COVID-19 allowing for baseline differences, age, ethnicity, smoking, body mass index (BMI), systolic blood pressure, Charlson score, index month, and matched set. Follow-up time was divided into 4 weeks from index date ("acute COVID-19"), 5 to 12 weeks from index date ("post-acute COVID-19"), and 13 to 52 weeks from index date ("long COVID-19"). Net incidence of DM increased in the first 4 weeks after COVID-19 (adjusted rate ratio, RR 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51 to 2.19) and remained elevated from 5 to 12 weeks (RR 1.27, 1.11 to 1.46) but not from 13 to 52 weeks overall (1.07, 0.99 to 1.16). Acute COVID-19 was associated with net increased CVD incidence (5.82, 4.82 to 7.03) including pulmonary embolism (RR 11.51, 7.07 to 18.73), atrial arrythmias (6.44, 4.17 to 9.96), and venous thromboses (5.43, 3.27 to 9.01). CVD incidence declined from 5 to 12 weeks (RR 1.49, 1.28 to 1.73) and showed a net decrease from 13 to 52 weeks (0.80, 0.73 to 0.88). The analyses were based on health records data and participants' exposure and outcome status might have been misclassified.ConclusionsIn this study, we found that CVD was increased early after COVID-19 mainly from pulmonary embolism, atrial arrhythmias, and venous thromboses. DM incidence remained elevated for at least 12 weeks following COVID-19 before declining. People without preexisting CVD or DM who suffer from COVID-19 do not appear to have a long-term increase in incidence of these conditions.

Project description:BackgroundThe comparison of recovery patterns for different care pathways following COVID-19 is necessary for optimizing rehabilitation strategies.ObjectivesTo evaluate cognitive and psychological outcomes across different care pathways up to 12 months after hospitalization for COVID-19.MethodsCO-FLOW is an ongoing multicenter prospective cohort study with assessments at 3, 6, and 12 months after hospitalization for COVID-19. The main outcomes are cognitive deficits (Montreal Cognitive Assessment, score <26), cognitive failure (Cognitive Failure Questionnaire, score >43), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Impact of Event Scale-Revised, score ≥33), and anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, subscale score ≥11).ResultsIn total, data from 617 participants were analyzed. Mean age was 59.7 (SD 11.4) years and 188 (31%) were female. Significant recovery occurred within the first 6 months post-discharge (p ≤ 0.001). Cognitive deficits persisted in 21% (101/474), and psychological problems in 15% (74/482) of people at 12 months. Significantly improved cognition scores were reported for people who did not receive rehabilitation ('No-rehab'; 124/617, 20%; mean difference, MD 2.32, 95% CI 1.47 to 3.17; p<0.001), those who received community-based rehabilitation ('Com-rehab'; 327/617, 53%; MD 1.27, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.78; p<0.001), and those who received medical rehabilitation ('Med-rehab'; 86/617, 14%; MD 1.63, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.10; p = 0.029). Med-rehab participants experienced more cognitive failure from 3 to 6 months (MD 4.24, 95% 1.63 to 6.84; p = 0.001). Com-rehab showed recovery for PTSD (MD -2.43, 95% -3.50 to -1.37; p<0.001), anxiety (MD -0.67, 95% -1.02 to -0.32; p<0.001), and depression (MD -0.60, 95% -0.96 to -0.25; p<0.001), but symptoms persisted at 12 months.ConclusionsSurvivors of COVID-19 showed cognitive and psychological recovery, especially within the first 6 months after hospitalization. Most persistent problems were related to cognitive functioning at 12 months. Recovery differed rehabilitation settings. Additional cognitive or psychological support might be warranted in people who medical or community-based rehabilitation.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and efficacy as a tool of smoking cessation of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), directly comparing users of e-cigarettes only, smokers of tobacco cigarettes only, and smokers of both.DesignProspective cohort study. Final results are expected in 2019, but given the urgency of data to support policies on electronic smoking, we report the results of the 12-month follow-up.Data sourcesDirect contact and structured questionnaires by phone or via internet.MethodsAdults (30-75 years) were included if they were smokers of ≥1 tobacco cigarette/day (tobacco smokers), users of any type of e-cigarettes, inhaling ≥50 puffs weekly (e-smokers), or smokers of both tobacco and e-cigarettes (dual smokers). Carbon monoxide levels were tested in a sample of those declaring tobacco smoking abstinence.Main outcome measuresSustained smoking abstinence from tobacco smoking at 12 months, reduction in the number of tobacco cigarettes smoked daily.Data synthesisWe used linear and logistic regression, with region as cluster unit.ResultsFollow-up data were available for 236 e-smokers, 491 tobacco smokers, and 232 dual smokers (overall response rate 70.8%). All e-smokers were tobacco ex-smokers. At 12 months, 61.9% of the e-smokers were still abstinent from tobacco smoking; 20.6% of the tobacco smokers and 22.0% of the dual smokers achieved tobacco abstinence. Adjusting for potential confounders, tobacco smoking abstinence or cessation remained significantly more likely among e-smokers (adjusted OR 5.19; 95% CI: 3.35-8.02), whereas adding e-cigarettes to tobacco smoking did not enhance the likelihood of quitting tobacco and did not reduce tobacco cigarette consumption. E-smokers showed a minimal but significantly higher increase in self-rated health than other smokers. Non significant differences were found in self-reported serious adverse events (eleven overall).ConclusionsAdding e-cigarettes to tobacco smoking did not facilitate smoking cessation or reduction. If e-cigarette safety will be confirmed, however, the use of e-cigarettes alone may facilitate quitters remaining so.Registration numberNCT01785537.