Dataset Information

EHealth in Geriatric Rehabilitation: Systematic Review of Effectiveness, Feasibility, and Usability.

ABSTRACT:

Background

eHealth has the potential to improve outcomes such as physical activity or balance in older adults receiving geriatric rehabilitation. However, several challenges such as scarce evidence on effectiveness, feasibility, and usability hinder the successful implementation of eHealth in geriatric rehabilitation.

Objective

The aim of this systematic review was to assess evidence on the effectiveness, feasibility, and usability of eHealth interventions in older adults in geriatric rehabilitation.

Methods

We searched 7 databases for randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized studies, quantitative descriptive studies, qualitative research, and mixed methods studies that applied eHealth interventions during geriatric rehabilitation. Included studies investigated a combination of effectiveness, usability, and feasibility of eHealth in older patients who received geriatric rehabilitation, with a mean age of ≥70 years. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and a narrative synthesis was conducted using a harvest plot.

Results

In total, 40 studies were selected, with clinical heterogeneity across studies. Of 40 studies, 15 studies (38%) found eHealth was at least as effective as non-eHealth interventions (56% of the 27 studies with a control group), 11 studies (41%) found eHealth interventions were more effective than non-eHealth interventions, and 1 study (4%) reported beneficial outcomes in favor of the non-eHealth interventions. Of 17 studies, 16 (94%) concluded that eHealth was feasible. However, high exclusion rates were reported in 7 studies of 40 (18%). Of 40 studies, 4 (10%) included outcomes related to usability and indicated that there were certain aging-related barriers to cognitive ability, physical ability, or perception, which led to difficulties in using eHealth.

Conclusions

eHealth can potentially improve rehabilitation outcomes for older patients receiving geriatric rehabilitation. Simple eHealth interventions were more likely to be feasible for older patients receiving geriatric rehabilitation, especially, in combination with another non-eHealth intervention. However, a lack of evidence on usability might hamper the implementation of eHealth. eHealth applications in geriatric rehabilitation show promise, but more research is required, including research with a focus on usability and participation.

SUBMITTER: Kraaijkamp JJM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8414304 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundElectronic health (eHealth) usability evaluations of rapidly developed eHealth systems are difficult to accomplish because traditional usability evaluation methods require substantial time in preparation and implementation. This illustrates the growing need for fast, flexible, and cost-effective methods to evaluate the usability of eHealth systems. To address this demand, the present study systematically identified and expert-validated rapidly deployable eHealth usability evaluation methods.ObjectiveIdentification and prioritization of eHealth usability evaluation methods suitable for agile, easily applicable, and useful eHealth usability evaluations.MethodsThe study design comprised a systematic iterative approach in which expert knowledge was contrasted with findings from literature. Forty-three eHealth usability evaluation methods were systematically identified and assessed regarding their ease of applicability and usefulness through semi-structured expert interviews with 10 European usability experts and systematic literature research. The most appropriate eHealth usability evaluation methods were selected stepwise based on the experts' judgements of their ease of applicability and usefulness.ResultsOf these 43 eHealth usability evaluation methods identified as suitable for agile, easily applicable, and useful eHealth usability evaluations, 10 were recommended by the experts based on their usefulness for rapid eHealth usability evaluations. The three most frequently recommended eHealth usability evaluation methods were Remote User Testing, Expert Review, and Rapid Iterative Test and Evaluation Method. Eleven usability evaluation methods, such as Retrospective Testing, were not recommended for use in rapid eHealth usability evaluations.ConclusionWe conducted a systematic review and expert-validation to identify rapidly deployable eHealth usability evaluation methods. The comprehensive and evidence-based prioritization of eHealth usability evaluation methods supports faster usability evaluations, and so contributes to the ease-of-use of emerging eHealth systems.

Project description:BackgroundThe number of people with noncommunicable diseases is increasing. Noncommunicable diseases are the major cause of disability and premature mortality worldwide, associated with negative workplace outcomes such as sickness absence and reduced work productivity. There is a need to identify scalable interventions and their active components to relieve disease and treatment burden and facilitate work participation. eHealth interventions have shown potential in clinical and general populations to increase well-being and physical activity and could be well suited for workplace settings.ObjectiveWe aimed to provide an overview of the effectiveness of eHealth interventions at the workplace targeting employee health behaviors and map behavior change techniques (BCTs) used in these interventions.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CINAHL in September 2020 and updated in September 2021. Extracted data included participant characteristics, setting, eHealth intervention type, mode of delivery, reported outcomes, effect sizes, and attrition rates. Quality and risk of bias of the included studies were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias 2 tool. BCTs were mapped in accordance with the BCT Taxonomy v1. The review was reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist.ResultsIn total, 17 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. The measured outcomes, treatment and follow-up periods, content of eHealth interventions, and workplace contexts had high heterogeneity. Of the 17 studies, 4 (24%) reported unequivocally significant findings for all primary outcomes, with effect sizes ranging from small to large. Furthermore, 53% (9/17) of the studies reported mixed results, and 24% (4/17) reported nonsignificant results. The most frequently targeted behavior was physical activity (15/17, 88% of the studies); the least frequently targeted behavior was smoking (2/17, 12% of the studies). Attrition varied greatly across the studies (0%-37%). Risk of bias was high in 65% (11/17) of the studies, with some concerns in the remaining 35% (6/17). Interventions used various BCTs, and the most frequently used were feedback and monitoring (14/17, 82%), goals and planning (10/17, 59%), antecedents (10/17, 59%), and social support (7/17, 41%).ConclusionsThis review suggests that, although eHealth interventions may have potential, there are still unanswered questions regarding their effectiveness and what drives the mechanism behind these effects. Low methodological quality, high heterogeneity and complexity, the characteristics of the included samples, and often high attrition rates challenge the investigation of the effectiveness and the making of sound inferences about the effect sizes and significance of the results. To address this, new studies and methods are needed. A megastudy design in which different interventions are evaluated in the same population over the same period on the same outcomes may solve some of the challenges.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020202777; https://www-crd-york-ac-uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=202777.

Project description:BackgroundCardiac rehabilitation is a class IA recommendation for patients with cardiovascular diseases. Physical activity is the core component and core competency of a cardiac rehabilitation program. However, many patients with cardiovascular diseases are failing to meet cardiac rehabilitation guidelines that recommend moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity.ObjectiveThe major objective of this study was to review the evidence of the effectiveness of eHealth interventions in increasing moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity among patients in cardiac rehabilitation. The secondary objective was to examine the effectiveness of eHealth interventions in improving cardiovascular-related outcomes, that is, cardiorespiratory fitness, waist circumference, and systolic blood pressure.MethodsA comprehensive search strategy was developed, and a systematic search of 4 electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library) was conducted for papers published from the start of the creation of the database until November 27, 2022. Experimental studies reporting on eHealth interventions designed to increase moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity among patients in cardiac rehabilitation were included. Multiple unblinded reviewers determined the study eligibility and extracted data. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool for randomized controlled trials and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care group methods for nonrandomized controlled trials. A random-effect model was used to provide the summary measures of effect (ie, standardized mean difference and 95% CI). All statistical analyses were performed using Stata 17.ResultsWe screened 3636 studies, but only 29 studies were included in the final review, of which 18 were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis demonstrated that eHealth interventions improved moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity (standardized mean difference=0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.28; P=.001) and vigorous-intensity physical activity (standardized mean difference=0.2, 95% CI 0.00-0.39; P=.048) but did not improve moderate-intensity physical activity (standardized mean difference=0.19, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.51; P=.23). No changes were observed in the cardiovascular-related outcomes. Post hoc subgroup analyses identified that wearable-based, web-based, and communication-based eHealth intervention delivery methods were effective.ConclusionseHealth interventions are effective at increasing minutes per week of moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity among patients in cardiac rehabilitation. There was no difference in the effectiveness of the major eHealth intervention delivery methods, thereby providing evidence that in the future, health care professionals and researchers can personalize convenient and affordable interventions tailored to patient characteristics and needs to eliminate the inconvenience of visiting center-based cardiac rehabilitation programs during the COVID-19 pandemic and to provide better support for home-based maintenance of cardiac rehabilitation.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021278029; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=278029.

Project description:BackgroundRapid advancements in eHealth and mobile health (mHealth) technologies have driven researchers to design and evaluate numerous technology-based interventions to promote smoking cessation. The evolving nature of cessation interventions emphasizes a strong need for knowledge synthesis.ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize recent evidence from randomized controlled trials regarding the effectiveness of eHealth-based smoking cessation interventions in promoting abstinence and assess nonabstinence outcome indicators, such as cigarette consumption and user satisfaction, via narrative synthesis.MethodsWe searched for studies published in English between 2017 and June 30, 2022, in 4 databases: PubMed (including MEDLINE), PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers performed study screening, data extraction, and quality assessment based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework. We pooled comparable studies based on the population, follow-up time, intervention, and control characteristics. Two researchers performed an independent meta-analysis on smoking abstinence using the Sidik-Jonkman random-effects model and log risk ratio (RR) as the effect measurement. For studies not included in the meta-analysis, the outcomes were narratively synthesized.ResultsA total of 464 studies were identified through an initial database search after removing duplicates. Following screening and full-text assessments, we deemed 39 studies (n=37,341 participants) eligible for this review. Of these, 28 studies were shortlisted for meta-analysis. According to the meta-analysis, SMS or app text messaging can significantly increase both short-term (3 months) abstinence (log RR=0.50, 95% CI 0.25-0.75; I2=0.72%) and long-term (6 months) abstinence (log RR=0.77, 95% CI 0.49-1.04; I2=8.65%), relative to minimal cessation support. The frequency of texting did not significantly influence treatment outcomes. mHealth apps may significantly increase abstinence in the short term (log RR=0.76, 95% CI 0.09-1.42; I2=88.02%) but not in the long term (log RR=0.15, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.48; I2=80.06%), in contrast to less intensive cessation support. In addition, personalized or interactive interventions showed a moderate increase in cessation for both the short term (log RR=0.62, 95% CI 0.30-0.94; I2=66.50%) and long term (log RR=0.28, 95% CI 0.04-0.53; I2=73.42%). In contrast, studies without any personalized or interactive features had no significant impact. Finally, the treatment effect was similar between trials that used biochemically verified or self-reported abstinence. Among studies reporting outcomes besides abstinence (n=20), a total of 11 studies reported significantly improved nonabstinence outcomes in cigarette consumption (3/14, 21%) or user satisfaction (8/19, 42%).ConclusionsOur review of 39 randomized controlled trials found that recent eHealth interventions might promote smoking cessation, with mHealth being the dominant approach. Despite their success, the effectiveness of such interventions may diminish with time. The design of more personalized interventions could potentially benefit future studies.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022347104; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=347104.

Project description:BackgroundConsidering the changing landscape of internet use and rising ownership of digital technology by young people, new methods could be considered to improve the current model of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) management.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to evaluate the usability of eHealth and mobile health (mHealth) interventions currently available for young people living with JIA.MethodsThe PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were used to oversee this review. We systematically searched 15 databases for 252 potential studies; 2 authors independently screened all quantitative studies reporting the use of eHealth and mHealth interventions for young people (aged 1-18 years) diagnosed with JIA. Studies were excluded if they did not report outcome measures or were reviews, commentaries, or qualitative studies. Study methodological quality was scored using the Down and Black (modified) checklist. A narrative descriptive methodology was used to quantify the data because of heterogeneity across the studies.ResultsA total of 11 studies were included in this review, reporting 7 eHealth and mHealth interventions for young people (aged 4-18 years) living with JIA, targeting health issues such as pain, health-related quality of life, physical activity, and chronic disease self-management. The usability of the interventions was facilitated through training and ongoing support. The engagement was promoted by a combination of persuasive influences, and barriers preventing adherence were removed through personal reminders and flexible program schedules to cater to JIA and non-JIA illnesses or other commonly seen activities in childhood. The feedback obtained was that most young people and their parents liked the interventions.ConclusionsThe results of this review need to be considered cautiously because of the lack of rigorous testing and heterogeneity, which limits the detailed descriptions of data synthesis. Further research is needed to consider gender differences, associated costs, and the effectiveness of the interventions on health outcomes to better support young people living with JIA.