Dataset Information

Human Connection and Technology Connectivity: A Systematic Review of Available Telehealth Survey Instruments.

ABSTRACT: CONTEXT:The current upsurge in telehealth use in palliative and hospice care warrants consideration of patient, family caregiver, and interdisciplinary palliative perspectives on telehealth modality and communication experiences. Currently, telehealth experiences and encounters are being described but not yet extensively evaluated by palliative care teams. OBJECTIVES:To locate survey instruments available to assess telehealth interactions, to determine the content and constructs covered by the available instruments, and to describe the patient populations previously surveyed by the existing instruments. METHODS:This study and its reporting followed PRISMA guidelines with the protocol registered in PROSPERO. Three databases were searched with over 3,100 articles analyzed for use of a telehealth survey instrument. RESULTS:Twelve telehealth communication assessment instruments were identified with mean length 20 questions, primarily Likert-scale responses with one inclusive of free-text and one qualitative inquiry survey. Three inquired only into modality, four queried communication, and five studied both modality and communication experience. Existing telehealth survey instruments are uni-directional in exploring patient or family experience with two inclusive of provider perspectives. Participant demographics are notably under-reported in telehealth experience studies with a frank lack of diversity in ethnic/racial, geographic, age, educational, and income representativeness in current telehealth survey instrument respondents. CONCLUSION:Palliative care teams may consider familiarity with telehealth survey instrument as an essential component to progress from description of telehealth use to evaluation of telehealth encounters. Current survey instrument outcome reports do not represent inclusivity or diversity, although telehealth is now being clinically applied across settings.

SUBMITTER: Weaver MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7556265 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Human Connection and Technology Connectivity: A Systematic Review of Available Telehealth Survey Instruments.

Weaver Meaghann S MS Lukowski Joe J Wichman Brittany B Navaneethan Hema H Fisher Alfred L AL Neumann Marie L ML

Journal of pain and symptom management 20201014 5

<h4>Context</h4>The current upsurge in telehealth use in palliative and hospice care warrants consideration of patient, family caregiver, and interdisciplinary palliative perspectives on telehealth modality and communication experiences. Currently, telehealth experiences and encounters are being described but not yet extensively evaluated by palliative care teams.<h4>Objectives</h4>To locate survey instruments available to assess telehealth interactions, to determine the content and constructs c ...[more]

PMID: 33068709

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization claimed that measuring outcomes is necessary to understand the benefits of assistive technology (AT) and create evidence-based policies and systems to ensure universal access to it. In clinical practice, there is an increasing need for standardized methods to track AT interventions using outcome assessments.ObjectiveThis review provides an overview of the available outcome measures that can be used at the follow-up stage of any AT intervention and integrated into daily clinical or service practice.MethodsWe systematically searched for original manuscripts regarding available and used AT outcome measures by searching for titles and abstracts in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to March 2023.ResultsWe analyzed 955 articles, of which 50 (5.2%) were included in the review. Within these, 53 instruments have been mentioned and used to provide an AT outcome assessment. The most widely used tool is the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology, followed by the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Technology Scale. Moreover, the identified measures addressed 8 AT outcome domains: functional efficacy, satisfaction, psychosocial impact, caregiver burden, quality of life, participation, confidence, and usability. The AT category Assistive products for activities and participation relating to personal mobility and transportation was the most involved in the reviewed articles.ConclusionsAmong the 53 cited instruments, only 17 (32%) scales were designed to evaluate specifically assistive devices. Moreover, 64% (34/53) of the instruments were only mentioned once to denote poor uniformity and concordance in the instruments to be used, limiting the possibility of comparing the results of studies. This work could represent a good guide for promoting the use of validated AT outcome measures in clinical practice that can be helpful to AT assessment teams in their everyday activities and the improvement of clinical practice.

Project description:Social connection is important for long-term care (LTC) residents' quality of life and care. However, there is a lack of consensus on how to measure it and this limits ability to find what improves and impairs social connection in LTC homes. We therefore aimed to systematically review and evaluate the measurement properties of existing measures of social connection for LTC residents, to identify which, if any, measures can be recommended. We searched eight electronic databases from inception to April 2022 for studies which reported on psychometric properties of a measure of any aspect(s) of social connection (including social networks, interaction, engagement, support, isolation, connectedness, and loneliness) for LTC residents. We used COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines to evaluate the measurement properties reported for each identified measure and make recommendations. We identified 62 studies reporting on 38 measures; 21 measured quality of life, well-being or life satisfaction and included a social connection subscale or standalone items and 17 measures specifically targeted social connection. We found there was little high-quality evidence on psychometric properties such as sufficient content validity (n = 0), structural validity (n = 3), internal consistency (n = 3), reliability (n = 1), measurement error (n = 0), construct validity (n = 4), criterion validity (n = 0) and responsiveness (n = 0). No measures demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties on all these aspects, so none could be recommended for use. Thirty-four measures have the potential to be recommended but require further research to assess their quality and the remaining four are not recommended for use. Our review therefore found that no existing measures have sufficient evidence to be recommended for assessment of social connection in residents of LTC homes. Further validation and reliability studies of existing instruments or the development of new measures are needed to enable accurate measurement of social connection in LTC residents for future observational and interventional studies.HighlightsSocial connection is fundamental to person-centered care in long-term care homes.There is insufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of existing measures.No current measures can be recommended for use based on existing evidence.A reliable and valid measure of social connection is needed for future research.

Project description:BackgroundThe internet is now a major source of health information. With the growth of internet users, eHealth literacy has emerged as a new concept for digital health care. Therefore, health professionals need to consider the eHealth literacy of consumers when providing care utilizing digital health technologies.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify currently available eHealth literacy instruments and evaluate their measurement properties to provide robust evidence to researchers and clinicians who are selecting an eHealth literacy instrument.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of self-reported eHealth literacy instruments by applying the updated COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) methodology.ResultsThis study included 7 instruments from 41 articles describing 57 psychometric studies, as identified in 4 databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycInfo). No eHealth literacy instrument provided evidence for all measurement properties. The eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS) was originally developed with a single-factor structure under the definition of eHealth literacy before the rise of social media and the mobile web. That instrument was evaluated in 18 different languages and 26 countries, involving diverse populations. However, various other factor structures were exhibited: 7 types of two-factor structures, 3 types of three-factor structures, and 1 bifactor structure. The transactional eHealth literacy instrument (TeHLI) was developed to reflect the broader concept of eHealth literacy and was demonstrated to have a sufficient low-quality and very low-quality evidence for content validity (relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility) and sufficient high-quality evidence for structural validity and internal consistency; however, that instrument has rarely been evaluated.ConclusionsThe eHealth literacy scale was the most frequently investigated instrument. However, it is strongly recommended that the instrument's content be updated to reflect recent advancements in digital health technologies. In addition, the transactional eHealth literacy instrument needs improvements in content validity and further psychometric studies to increase the credibility of its synthesized evidence.

Project description:BackgroundOlder adults present a variety of oral diseases and conditions, in addition to co-morbidities and limited access to dental care, which significantly impact their oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). There are many instruments published to measure OHRQoL. However, it is challenging for clinicians and researchers to choose the best instrument for a given purpose.PurposeTo identify OHRQoL instruments available for older adults and summarize the evidence on the conceptual and measurement model, psychometric properties, interpretability, and administration issues of OHRQoL instruments available for older adults through a systematic review.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL up to February 2023. Articles reporting information on the concept model measurement, psychometric properties, and administration issues of an instrument measuring OHRQoL in older adults were included. Two researchers independently evaluated each instrument using the Evaluating Measures of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool. The overall score and seven attribute-specific scores were calculated (range 0-100): Conceptual and measurement model, Reliability, Validity, Responsiveness, Interpretability, Burden, and Alternative forms.ResultsWe identified 14 instruments evaluated in 97 articles. The overall score varied between 73.7 and 8.9, with only six questionnaires over the threshold score 50.0. EORTC QLQ OH-15 (cancer-specific questionnaire) achieved the highest score (73.7), followed by OHIP (generic OHRQoL questionnaire) (66.9), GOHAI (generic OHRQoL questionnaire) (65.5), and OHIDL (generic OHRQoL questionnaire) (65.2). Overall, the Conceptual and measurement model and Validity showed the best performance, while Responsiveness and Interpretability showed the worst. Insufficient information was presented for an overall evaluation of DSQ and OHAI.ConclusionThe evidence supports using EORTC QLQ-OH15 as a specific instrument to assess OHRQoL in cancer patients and the OHIP-49, GOHAI, or OHIDL as generic instruments to assess OHRQoL either for cross-sectional or longitudinal studies in older adults.

Project description:BackgroundTelehealth technology is an excellent solution to resolve the problems of health care delivery. However, this technology may fail during large-scale implementation. As a result, business models can be used to facilitate commercialization of telehealth products and services.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to review different types of business models or frameworks and their components used in the telehealth industry.MethodsThis was a systematic review conducted in 2020. The databases used for searching related articles included Ovid, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Emerald, and ProQuest. Google Scholar was also searched. These databases and Google Scholar were searched until the end of January 2020 and duplicate references were removed. Finally, articles meeting the inclusion criteria were selected and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist was used for appraising the strengths and limitations of each study. Data were extracted using a data extraction form, and the results were synthesized narratively.ResultsInitially, 4998 articles were found and after screening, 23 were selected to be included in the study. The results showed that new telehealth business models were presented in 13 studies, and the applications of the existing business models were reported in 10 studies. These studies were related to different types of services, namely, telemonitoring (4 studies), telemedicine (3 studies), mobile health (3 studies), telerehabilitation (3 studies), telehealth (2 studies), assisted living technologies (2 studies), sensor-based systems (2 studies), and mobile teledermoscopy, teleradiology, telecardiology, and teletreatment (1 study related to each area). In most of the business models, value proposition, financial variables, and revenue streams were the main components.ConclusionsApplying business models in the commercialization of telehealth services will be useful to gain a better understanding of the required components, market challenges, and possible future changes. The results showed that different business models can be used for different telehealth technologies in various health systems and cultures. However, it is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of these models in practice. Moreover, comparing the usefulness of these models in different domains of telehealth services will help identify the strengths and weaknesses of these models for future optimization.

Project description:Policy Points: Investigations on systematic methodologies for measuring integrated care should coincide with the growing interest in this field of research. A systematic review of instruments provides insights into integrated care measurement, including setting the research agenda for validating available instruments and informing the decision to develop new ones. This study is the first systematic review of instruments measuring integrated care with an evidence synthesis of the measurement properties. We found 209 index instruments measuring different constructs related to integrated care; the strength of evidence on the adequacy of the majority of their measurement properties remained largely unassessed.Integrated care is an important strategy for increasing health system performance. Despite its growing significance, detailed evidence on the measurement properties of integrated care instruments remains vague and limited. Our systematic review aims to provide evidence on the state of the art in measuring integrated care.Our comprehensive systematic review framework builds on the Rainbow Model for Integrated Care (RMIC). We searched MEDLINE/PubMed for published articles on the measurement properties of instruments measuring integrated care and identified eligible articles using a standard set of selection criteria. We assessed the methodological quality of every validation study reported using the COSMIN checklist and extracted data on study and instrument characteristics. We also evaluated the measurement properties of each examined instrument per validation study and provided a best evidence synthesis on the adequacy of measurement properties of the index instruments.From the 300 eligible articles, we assessed the methodological quality of 379 validation studies from which we identified 209 index instruments measuring integrated care constructs. The majority of studies reported on instruments measuring constructs related to care integration (33%) and patient-centered care (49%); fewer studies measured care continuity/comprehensive care (15%) and care coordination/case management (3%). We mapped 84% of the measured constructs to the clinical integration domain of the RMIC, with fewer constructs related to the domains of professional (3.7%), organizational (3.4%), and functional (0.5%) integration. Only 8% of the instruments were mapped to a combination of domains; none were mapped exclusively to the system or normative integration domains. The majority of instruments were administered to either patients (60%) or health care providers (20%). Of the measurement properties, responsiveness (4%), measurement error (7%), and criterion (12%) and cross-cultural validity (14%) were less commonly reported. We found <50% of the validation studies to be of good or excellent quality for any of the measurement properties. Only a minority of index instruments showed strong evidence of positive findings for internal consistency (15%), content validity (19%), and structural validity (7%); with moderate evidence of positive findings for internal consistency (14%) and construct validity (14%).Our results suggest that the quality of measurement properties of instruments measuring integrated care is in need of improvement with the less-studied constructs and domains to become part of newly developed instruments.

Dataset Information

Human Connection and Technology Connectivity: A Systematic Review of Available Telehealth Survey Instruments.

Publications

Human Connection and Technology Connectivity: A Systematic Review of Available Telehealth Survey Instruments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets