Dataset Information

Factors influencing the effectiveness of remote patient monitoring interventions: a realist review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Our recent systematic review determined that remote patient monitoring (RPM) interventions can reduce acute care use. However, effectiveness varied within and between populations. Clinicians, researchers, and policymakers require more than evidence of effect; they need guidance on how best to design and implement RPM interventions. Therefore, this study aimed to explore these results further to (1) identify factors of RPM interventions that relate to increased and decreased acute care use and (2) develop recommendations for future RPM interventions.

Design

Realist review-a qualitative systematic review method which aims to identify and explain why intervention results vary in different situations. We analysed secondarily 91 studies included in our previous systematic review that reported on RPM interventions and the impact on acute care use. Online databases PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched in October 2020. Included studies were published in English during 2015-2020 and used RPM to monitor an individual's biometric data (eg, heart rate, blood pressure) from a distance.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Contextual factors and potential mechanisms that led to variation in acute care use (hospitalisations, length of stay or emergency department presentations).

Results

Across a range of RPM interventions 31 factors emerged that impact the effectiveness of RPM innovations on acute care use. These were synthesised into six theories of intervention success: (1) targeting populations at high risk; (2) accurately detecting a decline in health; (3) providing responsive and timely care; (4) personalising care; (5) enhancing self-management, and (6) ensuring collaborative and coordinated care.

Conclusion

While RPM interventions are complex, if they are designed with patients, providers and the implementation setting in mind and incorporate the key variables identified within this review, it is more likely that they will be effective at reducing acute hospital events.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020142523.

SUBMITTER: Thomas EE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8388293 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients are increasingly being asked for feedback about their healthcare and treatment, including safety, despite little evidence to support this trend. This review identifies the strategies used to engage patients in safety during direct care, explores who is engaged and determines the mechanisms that impact effectiveness.MethodsA systematic review was performed of seven databases (CINAHL, Cochrane, Cochrane-Central, Embase, ISI Web of Science, Medline, PsycINFO) that included research published between 2010 and 2020 focused on patient engagement interventions to increase safety during direct care and reported using PRISMA. All research designs were eligible; two reviewers applied criteria independently to determine eligibility and quality. A narrative review and realist synthesis were conducted.ResultsTwenty-six papers reporting on twenty-seven patient engagement strategies were included and classified as consultation (9), involvement (7) and partnership (11). The definitions of 'patient engagement' varied, and we found limited details about participant characteristics or interactions between people utilizing strategies. Collaborative strategy development, a user-friendly design, proactive messaging and agency sponsorship were identified as mechanisms to improve engagement about safety at the point of direct care.ConclusionsAgency sponsorship of collaboration between staff and patients is essential in the development and implementation of strategies to keep patients safe during direct care. Insufficient details about participant characteristics and patient-provider interactions limit recommendations for practice change. More needs to be learned about how patients are engaged in discussions about safety, particularly minority groups unable to engage with standard information.Patient or public contributionReview progress was reported to the CanEngage team, including the consumer steering group, to inform project priorities (PROSPERO CRD42020196453).

Project description:BACKGROUND:The NHS Health Check (NHSHC) is a risk assessment for those aged 40-74 without a pre-existing condition in England, with the aim of preventing stroke, kidney disease, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and dementia. Uptake has been lower than anticipated. Ensuring that a high percentage of eligible patients receive a NHSHC is key to optimising the clinical and cost effectiveness of the programme. The aim of this systematic review is to highlight interventions and invitation methods that increase the uptake of NHSHCs, and to identify whether the effectiveness of these interact with broader patient and contextual factors. METHOD:A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist. Papers were eligible if they explored the impact of at least one of (i) interventions, (ii) invitation methods or (iii) broader factors on NHSHC uptake. Ten databases were searched in January 2016 and seven were searched in March 2018. Nine-hundred-and-forty-five papers were identified, 238 were screened and 64 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Nine studies were included in the review. RESULTS:The nine studies were all from peer reviewed journals. They included two randomised controlled trials, one observational cohort and six cross-sectional studies. Different invitation methods may be more effective for different groups of patients based on their ethnicity and gender. One intervention to enhance invitation letters effectively increased uptake but another did not. In addition, individual patient characteristics (such as age, gender, ethnicity and risk level) were found to influence uptake. This review also finds that uptake varies significantly by GP practice, which could be due either to unidentified practice-level factors or deprivation. CONCLUSIONS:Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of different invitation methods for different population groups. Research should examine how existing invitation methods can be enhanced to drive uptake whilst reducing health inequalities. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO on 22.02.2016. Registration number CRD42016035626.

Project description:BackgroundRemote patient monitoring (RPM) interventions are being increasingly implemented in health care environments, given their benefits for different stakeholders. However, the effects of these interventions on the workflow of clinical staff are not always considered in RPM research and practice.ObjectiveThis review explored how contemporary RPM interventions affect clinical staff and their workflows in perioperative settings.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review of recent articles reporting the impact of RPM interventions implemented in perioperative settings on clinical staff and their workflow. The databases accessed were Embase and PubMed. A qualitative analysis was performed to identify the main problems and advantages that RPM brings to staff, in addition to the approaches taken to evaluate the impact of those interventions. Different themes were identified in terms of the challenges of RPM for clinical staff as well as in terms of benefits, risk-reduction strategies, and methods for measuring the impact of these interventions on the workflow of clinical staff.ResultsA total of 1063 papers were found during the initial search, of which 21 (1.98%) met the inclusion criteria. Of the 21 included papers, 15 (71%) focused on evaluating new RPM systems, 4 (19%) focused on existing systems, and 2 (10%) were reviews.ConclusionsThe reviewed literature shows that the impact on staff work experience is a crucial factor to consider when developing and implementing RPM interventions in perioperative settings. However, we noticed both underdevelopment and lack of standardization in the methods for assessing the impact of these interventions on clinical staff and their workflow. On the basis of the reviewed literature, we recommend the development of more robust methods for evaluating the impact of RPM interventions on staff experience in perioperative care; the adoption of a stronger focus on transition management when introducing these interventions in clinical practice; and the inclusion of longer periods of assessment, including the evaluation of long-term goals.

Project description:BackgroundWithout any pharmaceutical intervention and vaccination, the only way to combat Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is to slow down the spread of the disease by adopting non-pharmaceutical public health interventions (PHIs). Patient isolation, lockdown, quarantine, social distancing, changes in health care provision, and mass screening are the most common non-pharmaceutical PHIs to cope with the epidemic. However, there is neither systematic evidence on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical PHIs in controlling the COVID-19 nor on how these interventions work in different contexts. Therefore, in this study we will address two main objectives: 1) to assess the effectiveness of the non-pharmaceutical PHIs in controlling the spread of COVID-19 using a systematic review and meta-analyses; 2) to explore why, how, and for whom these interventions work using a realist review.Materials and methodsThis review study has two main phases. In the first phase of this study, we will extract data from two main types of studies including quasi-experimental studies (such as quasi-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series studies (ITSs)) and observational studies (such as cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies), written in the English language. We will explore effectiveness of the non-pharmaceutical PHIs targeted either suppression or mitigation strategies (or a combination of both) in controlling the COVID-19 epidemics in the community level. Effectiveness will be considered as the changes in mortality rate, incidence rate, basic reproduction number rate, morbidity rate, rates of hospitalization, rates of intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization, and other health outcomes where possible. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses, if possible, using CMA software. In the second phase, we will conduct a realist review to find out how, why, for whom, and in what circumstances the non-pharmaceutical PHIs work. At the realist review, we will identify and explore Context-Mechanism-Outcome configurations to provide a robust explanation on the effectiveness of the interventions in different contexts using Pawson's 5-step realist review template including: "clarify scope; search for evidence; appraise primary studies and extract data; synthesize evidence and draw conclusions; and disseminate, implement and evaluate". Although the steps are presented in a linear manner, in practice, we will follow them in iterative stages to fill any potential overlap.DiscussionThe findings of this research will provide a crucial insight into how and in which context the non-pharmaceutical PHIs work in controlling the spread of COVID-19. Conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis in line with a realist review will allow us to draw a robust conclusion on the effects and the way in which the interventions work. Understanding the role of contextual factors in the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical PHIs and the mechanism of this process could enable policymakers to implement appropriate policies and manage the COVID-19 epidemics more efficiently.Systematic review registrationCRD42020186855.

Project description:BackgroundWomen are representing an increasing share of the labor force, thus, raising the need to accommodate breastfeeding working mothers at the workplace. While there is an emerging body of evidence supporting the positive influence of workplace lactation programs on breastfeeding outcomes, there is a lack of literature on the mechanisms underlying those interventions. Aims of this realist review were three-fold: to uncover underlying mechanisms, determine who benefits the most from such interventions and important contextual factors influencing uptake.MethodsPurposive bibliographic searches on Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL, Global Health, LILACS, Global Index Medicus, Business Source Complete, Proquest Dissertations and Theses and Open Access Theses and Dissertations were conducted to identify relevant publications. Included publications (qualitative and quantitative) described interventions aiming to improve the breastfeeding behavior of working mothers, that were initiated by the employer, reported on breastfeeding outcomes and had a clearly defined workplace. Publications only focusing on maternity leave or that were not published in English, Spanish, Portuguese or German were excluded. A realist approach was followed to identify how workplace interventions work, who benefits the most and the important contextual factors.ResultsThe bibliographic search yielded a total of 4985 possible publications of which 37 publications were included in the realist analysis. Effective workplace breastfeeding interventions activate three mechanisms: 1) awareness of the intervention, 2) changes in workplace culture, manager/supervisor support, co-worker support and physical environments, and 3) provision of time. Contextual factors such as the distance between the workplace and the infant and the type of workplace may influence the degree of activation of the underlying mechanisms for programs to positively impact breastfeeding outcomes.ConclusionsIn order to be effective, workplace breastfeeding interventions need to: raise awareness of the intervention(s) available among working mothers as well as their work environment, change the workplace culture, foster manager/supervisor support and co-workers support, provide enough time and adequate space and facilities for women to breastfeed or express breastmilk during the workday.