Dataset Information

Barriers to Remote Health Interventions for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Proposed Classification Scheme.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Diabetes self-management involves adherence to healthy daily habits typically involving blood glucose monitoring, medication, exercise, and diet. To support self-management, some providers have begun testing remote interventions for monitoring and assisting patients between clinic visits. Although some studies have shown success, there are barriers to widespread adoption.

Objective

The objective of our study was to identify and classify barriers to adoption of remote health for management of type 2 diabetes.

Methods

The following 6 electronic databases were searched for articles published from 2010 to 2015: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Northern Light Life Sciences Conference Abstracts, and Scopus (Elsevier). The search identified studies involving remote technologies for type 2 diabetes self-management. Reviewers worked in teams of 2 to review and extract data from identified papers. Information collected included study characteristics, outcomes, dropout rates, technologies used, and barriers identified.

Results

A total of 53 publications on 41 studies met the specified criteria. Lack of data accuracy due to input bias (32%, 13/41), limitations on scalability (24%, 10/41), and technology illiteracy (24%, 10/41) were the most commonly cited barriers. Technology illiteracy was most prominent in low-income populations, whereas limitations on scalability were more prominent in mid-income populations. Barriers identified were applied to a conceptual model of successful remote health, which includes patient engagement, patient technology accessibility, quality of care, system technology cost, and provider productivity. In total, 40.5% (60/148) of identified barrier instances impeded patient engagement, which is manifest in the large dropout rates cited (up to 57%).

Conclusions

The barriers identified represent major challenges in the design of remote health interventions for diabetes. Breakthrough technologies and systems are needed to alleviate the barriers identified so far, particularly those associated with patient engagement. Monitoring devices that provide objective and reliable data streams on medication, exercise, diet, and glucose monitoring will be essential for widespread effectiveness. Additional work is needed to understand root causes of high dropout rates, and new interventions are needed to identify and assist those at the greatest risk of dropout. Finally, future studies must quantify costs and benefits to determine financial sustainability.

SUBMITTER: Alvarado MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5329647 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Barriers to Remote Health Interventions for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Proposed Classification Scheme.

Alvarado Michelle M MM Kum Hye-Chung HC Gonzalez Coronado Karla K Foster Margaret J MJ Ortega Pearl P Lawley Mark A MA

Journal of medical Internet research 20170213 2

<h4>Background</h4>Diabetes self-management involves adherence to healthy daily habits typically involving blood glucose monitoring, medication, exercise, and diet. To support self-management, some providers have begun testing remote interventions for monitoring and assisting patients between clinic visits. Although some studies have shown success, there are barriers to widespread adoption.<h4>Objective</h4>The objective of our study was to identify and classify barriers to adoption of remote he ...[more]

PMID: 28193598

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAttracting and retaining sufficient health workers to provide adequate services for residents of rural and remote areas has global significance. High income countries (HICs) face challenges in staffing rural areas, which are often perceived by health workers as less attractive workplaces. The objective of this review was to examine the quantifiable associations between interventions to retain health workers in rural and remote areas of HICs, and workforce retention.MethodsThe review considers studies of rural or remote health workers in HICs where participants have experienced interventions, support measures or incentive programs intended to increase retention. Experimental, quasi-experimental and observational study designs including cohort, case-control, cross-sectional and case series studies published since 2010 were eligible for inclusion. The Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for reviews of risk and aetiology was used. Databases searched included MEDLINE (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, Web of Science and Informit.ResultsOf 2649 identified articles, 34 were included, with a total of 58,188 participants. All study designs were observational, limiting certainty of findings. Evidence relating to the retention of non-medical health professionals was scant. There is growing evidence that preferential selection of students who grew up in a rural area is associated with increased rural retention. Undertaking substantial lengths of rural training during basic university training or during post-graduate training were each associated with higher rural retention, as was supporting existing rural health professionals to extend their skills or upgrade their qualifications. Regulatory interventions requiring return-of-service (ROS) in a rural area in exchange for visa waivers, access to professional licenses or provider numbers were associated with comparatively low rural retention, especially once the ROS period was complete. Rural retention was higher if ROS was in exchange for loan repayments.ConclusionEducational interventions such as preferential selection of rural students and distributed training in rural areas are associated with increased rural retention of health professionals. Strongly coercive interventions are associated with comparatively lower rural retention than interventions that involve less coercion. Policy makers seeking rural retention in the medium and longer term would be prudent to strengthen rural training pathways and limit the use of strongly coercive interventions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Remote measurement technology refers to the use of mobile health technology to track and measure change in health status in real time as part of a person's everyday life. With accurate measurement, remote measurement technology offers the opportunity to augment health care by providing personalized, precise, and preemptive interventions that support insight into patterns of health-related behavior and self-management. However, for successful implementation, users need to be engaged in its use. OBJECTIVE:Our objective was to systematically review the literature to update and extend the understanding of the key barriers to and facilitators of engagement with and use of remote measurement technology, to guide the development of future remote measurement technology resources. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines involving original studies dating back to the last systematic review published in 2014. We included studies if they met the following entry criteria: population (people using remote measurement technology approaches to aid management of health), intervention (remote measurement technology system), comparison group (no comparison group specified), outcomes (qualitative or quantitative evaluation of the barriers to and facilitators of engagement with this system), and study design (randomized controlled trials, feasibility studies, and observational studies). We searched 5 databases (MEDLINE, IEEE Xplore, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) for articles published from January 2014 to May 2017. Articles were independently screened by 2 researchers. We extracted study characteristics and conducted a content analysis to define emerging themes to synthesize findings. Formal quality assessments were performed to address risk of bias. RESULTS:A total of 33 studies met inclusion criteria, employing quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods designs. Studies were conducted in 10 countries, included male and female participants, with ages ranging from 8 to 95 years, and included both active and passive remote monitoring systems for a diverse range of physical and mental health conditions. However, they were relatively short and had small sample sizes, and reporting of usage statistics was inconsistent. Acceptability of remote measurement technology according to the average percentage of time used (64%-86.5%) and dropout rates (0%-44%) was variable. The barriers and facilitators from the content analysis related to health status, perceived utility and value, motivation, convenience and accessibility, and usability. CONCLUSIONS:The results of this review highlight gaps in the design of studies trialing remote measurement technology, including the use of quantitative assessment of usage and acceptability. Several processes that could facilitate engagement with this technology have been identified and may drive the development of more person-focused remote measurement technology. However, these factors need further testing through carefully designed experimental studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION:International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42017060644; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=60644 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/70K4mThTr).

Project description:BackgroundDiabetes mellitus (DM) is one of the world's greatest health threats with rising prevalence. Global digitalization leads to new digital approaches in diabetes management, such as telemedical interventions. Telemedicine, which is the use of information and communication technologies, may provide medical services over spatial distances to improve clinical patient outcomes by increasing access to diabetes care and medical information.ObjectiveThis study aims to examine whether telemedical interventions effectively improve diabetes control using studies that pooled patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and whether the benefits are greater in patients diagnosed with T2DM than in those diagnosed with T1DM. We analyzed the primary outcome glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and the secondary outcomes fasting blood glucose (FBG), blood pressure (BP), body weight, BMI, quality of life (QoL), cost, and time saving.MethodsPublications were systematically identified by searching Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, and CINAHL databases for studies published between January 2008 and April 2020, considering systematic reviews (SRs), meta-analyses (MAs), randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and clinical trials (CTs). Study quality was assessed using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, Effective Public Health Practice Project, and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence qualitative checklist. We organized the trials by communication technologies in real-time video or audio interventions, asynchronous interventions, and combined interventions (synchronous and asynchronous communication).ResultsFrom 1116 unique citations, we identified 31 eligible studies (n=15 high, n=14 moderate, n=1 weak, and n=1 critically low quality). We selected 21 SRs and MAs, 8 RCTs, 1 non-RCT, and 1 qualitative study. Of the 10 trials, 3 were categorized as real-time video, 1 as real-time video and audio, 4 as asynchronous, and 2 as combined intervention. Significant decline in HbA1c levels based on pooled T1DM and T2DM patients data ranged from -0.22% weighted mean difference (WMD; 95% CI -0.28 to -0.15; P<.001) to -0.64% mean difference (95% CI -1.01 to -0.26; P<.001). The intervention effect on lowering HbA1c values might be significantly smaller for patients with T1DM than for patients with T2DM. Evidence on the impact on BP, body weight, FBG, cost effectiveness, and time saving was smaller compared with HbA1c but indicated potential in some publications.ConclusionsTelemedical interventions might be clinically effective in improving diabetes control overall, and they might significantly improve HbA1c concentrations. Patients with T2DM could benefit more than patients with T1DM regarding lowering HbA1c levels. Further studies with longer duration and larger cohorts are necessary.

Project description:BackgroundPoor management of mental illnesses is associated with lower treatment adherence, chronification, avoidable re-hospitalisations, and high costs. Remote measurement based care (RMBC) interventions have gained increasing relevance due to its potential in providing a comprehensive and patient-centric approach to mental health management.ObjectivesThe systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide a comprehensive overview and analysis of existing evidence on the use of RMBC for patients with mental illness and to examine the effectiveness of RMBC interventions in alleviating disorder-specific symptoms, reducing relapse and improving recovery-oriented outcomes, global functioning, and quality of life.Methods and analysisOur multidisciplinary research team will develop a comprehensive search strategy, adapted to each electronic database (PubMed, Medline, Embase, and PsychINFO) to be examined systematically. Studies with patients formally diagnosed by the International Classification of Diseases or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders which include assessment of self-reported psychiatric symptoms will be included. Publications will be reviewed by teams of independent researchers. Quality of studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. Outcomes cover symptom-focused or disease-specific outcomes, relapse, recovery-focused outcomes, global functioning, quality of life and acceptability of the intervention. Further data that will be extracted includes study characteristics, target population, intervention, and tracking characteristics. Data will be synthesised qualitatively, summarising findings of the systematic review. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) will be considered for meta-analysis if data is found comparable in terms of mental illness, study design and outcomes. Cumulative evidence will be evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.Trial registrationTrial registration number: PROSPERO CRD42022356176.

Dataset Information

Barriers to Remote Health Interventions for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Proposed Classification Scheme.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Barriers to Remote Health Interventions for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Proposed Classification Scheme.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets