Dataset Information

Remote Monitoring Systems for Patients With Chronic Diseases in Primary Health Care: Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The digital age, with digital sensors, the Internet of Things (IoT), and big data tools, has opened new opportunities for improving the delivery of health care services, with remote monitoring systems playing a crucial role and improving access to patients. The versatility of these systems has been demonstrated during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Health remote monitoring systems (HRMS) present various advantages such as the reduction in patient load at hospitals and health centers. Patients that would most benefit from HRMS are those with chronic diseases, older adults, and patients that experience less severe symptoms recovering from SARS-CoV-2 viral infection.

Objective

This paper aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature of HRMS in primary health care (PHC) settings, identifying the current status of the digitalization of health processes, remote data acquisition, and interactions between health care personnel and patients.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines to identify articles that explored interventions with HRMS in patients with chronic diseases in the PHC setting.

Results

The literature review yielded 123 publications, 18 of which met the predefined inclusion criteria. The selected articles highlighted that sensors and wearables are already being used in multiple scenarios related to chronic disease management at the PHC level. The studies focused mostly on patients with diabetes (9/26, 35%) and cardiovascular diseases (7/26, 27%). During the evaluation of the implementation of these interventions, the major difficulty that stood out was the integration of information into already existing systems in the PHC infrastructure and in changing working processes of PHC professionals (83%).

Conclusions

The PHC context integrates multidisciplinary teams and patients with often complex, chronic pathologies. Despite the theoretical framework, objective identification of problems, and involvement of stakeholders in the design and implementation processes, these interventions mostly fail to scale up. Despite the inherent limitations of conducting a systematic literature review, the small number of studies in the PHC context is a relevant limitation. This study aimed to demonstrate the importance of matching technological development to the working PHC processes in interventions regarding the use of sensors and wearables for remote monitoring as a source of information for chronic disease management, so that information with clinical value is not lost along the way.

SUBMITTER: Peyroteo M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8734917 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere has been growing international interest in performing remote consultations in primary care, particularly amidst the current COVID-19 pandemic. Despite this, the evidence surrounding the safety of remote consultations is inconclusive. The appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing in remote consultations is an important aspect of patient safety that needs to be addressed.ObjectiveThis study aimed to summarize evidence on the impact of remote consultation in primary care with regard to antibiotic prescribing.MethodsSearches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, HMIC, PsycINFO, and CINAHL for literature published since the databases' inception to February 2020. Peer-reviewed studies conducted in primary health care settings were included. All remote consultation types were considered, and studies were required to report any quantitative measure of antibiotic prescribing to be included in this systematic review. Studies were excluded if there were no comparison groups (face-to-face consultations).ResultsIn total, 12 studies were identified. Of these, 4 studies reported higher antibiotic-prescribing rates, 5 studies reported lower antibiotic-prescribing rates, and 3 studies reported similar antibiotic-prescribing rates in remote consultations compared with face-to-face consultations. Guideline-concordant prescribing was not significantly different between remote and face-to-face consultations for patients with sinusitis, but conflicting results were found for patients with acute respiratory infections. Mixed evidence was found for follow-up visit rates after remote and face-to-face consultations.ConclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to confidently conclude that remote consulting has a significant impact on antibiotic prescribing in primary care. However, studies indicating higher prescribing rates in remote consultations than in face-to-face consultations are a concern. Further, well-conducted studies are needed to inform safe and appropriate implementation of remote consulting to ensure that there is no unintended impact on antimicrobial resistance.

Project description:BackgroundTechnology-based systems can facilitate remote decision-making to triage patients to the appropriate level of care. Despite technologic advances, the effects of implementation of these systems on patient and utilization outcomes are unclear. We evaluated the effects of remote triage systems on healthcare utilization, case resolution, and patient safety outcomes.MethodsEnglish-language searches of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and CINAHL were performed from inception until July 2018. Randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies of remote triage services that reported healthcare utilization, case resolution, and patient safety outcomes were included. Two reviewers assessed study and intervention characteristics independently for study quality, strength of evidence, and risk of bias.ResultsThe literature search identified 5026 articles, of which eight met eligibility criteria. Five randomized, two controlled before-and-after, and one interrupted time series study assessed 3 categories of remote triage services: mode of delivery, triage professional type, and system organizational level. No study evaluated any other delivery mode other than telephone and in-person. Meta-analyses were unable to be performed because of study design and outcome heterogeneity; therefore, we narratively synthesized data. Overall, most studies did not demonstrate a decrease in primary care (PC) or emergency department (ED) utilization, with some studies showing a significant increase. Evidence suggested local, practice-based triage systems have greater case resolution and refer fewer patients to PC or ED services than regional/national systems. No study identified statistically significant differences in safety outcomes.ConclusionOur review found limited evidence that remote triage reduces the burden of PC or ED utilization. However, remote triage by telephone can produce a high rate of call resolution and appears to be safe. Further study of other remote triage modalities is needed to realize the promise of remote triage services in optimizing healthcare outcomes.Protocol registrationThis study was registered and followed a published protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019112262).

Project description:ObjectiveChronic diseases are associated with increased unplanned acute hospital use. Remote patient monitoring (RPM) can detect disease exacerbations and facilitate proactive management, possibly reducing expensive acute hospital usage. Current evidence examining RPM and acute care use mainly involves heart failure and omits automated invasive monitoring. This study aimed to determine if RPM reduces acute hospital use.MethodsA systematic literature review of PubMed, Embase and CINAHL electronic databases was undertaken in July 2019 and updated in October 2020 for studies published from January 2015 to October 2020 reporting RPM and effect on hospitalisations, length of stay or emergency department presentations. All populations and disease conditions were included. Two independent reviewers screened articles. Quality analysis was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Findings were stratified by outcome variable. Subgroup analysis was undertaken on disease condition and RPM technology.ResultsFrom 2050 identified records, 91 studies were included. Studies were medium-to-high quality. RPM for all disease conditions was reported to reduce admissions, length of stay and emergency department presentations in 49% (n=44/90), 49% (n=23/47) and 41% (n=13/32) of studies reporting each measure, respectively. Remaining studies largely reported no change. Four studies reported RPM increased acute care use. RPM of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was more effective at reducing emergency presentation than RPM of other disease conditions. Similarly, invasive monitoring of cardiovascular disease was more effective at reducing hospital admissions versus other disease conditions and non-invasive monitoring.ConclusionRPM can reduce acute care use for patients with cardiovascular disease and COPD. However, effectiveness varies within and between populations. RPM's effect on other conditions is inconclusive due to limited studies. Further analysis is required to understand underlying mechanisms causing variation in RPM interventions. These findings should be considered alongside other benefits of RPM, including increased quality of life for patients.Prospero registration numberCRD42020142523.

Project description:BACKGROUND: There are significant health status inequalities in Australia between those people living in rural and remote locations and people living in metropolitan centres. Since almost ninety percent of the population use some form of primary health care service annually, a logical initial step in reducing the disparity in health status is to improve access to health care by specifying those primary health care services that should be considered as "core" and therefore readily available to all Australians regardless of where they live. A systematic review was undertaken to define these "core" services.Using the question "What primary health care services should residents of rural and remote Australia be able to access?", the objective of this paper is to delineate those primary health care core services that should be readily available to all regardless of geography. METHOD: A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature from established databases was undertaken. Relevant websites were also searched for grey literature. Key informants were accessed to identify other relevant reference material. All papers were assessed by at least two assessors according to agreed inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Data were extracted from 19 papers (7 papers from the peer-reviewed database search and 12 from other grey sources) which met the inclusion criteria. The 19 papers demonstrated substantial variability in both the number and nature of core services. Given this variation, the specification or synthesis of a universal set of core services proved to be a complex and arguably contentious task. Nonetheless, the different primary health care dimensions that should be met through the provision of core services were developed. In addition, the process of identifying core services provided important insights about the need to deliver these services in ways that are "fit-for-purpose" in widely differing geographic contexts. CONCLUSIONS: Defining a suite of core primary health care services is a difficult process. Such a suite should be fit-for-purpose, relevant to the context, and its development should be methodologically clear, appropriate, and evidence-based. The value of identifying core PHC services to both consumers and providers for service planning and monitoring and consequent health outcomes is paramount.

Project description:BackgroundAntimicrobial resistance is an emerging problem worldwide and poses a significant threat to human health. Antimicrobial stewardship programmes are being implemented in health systems globally, primarily in hospitals, to address the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance. Despite the significance of primary health care services in providing health care to communities, antimicrobial stewardship programmes are not well established in this sector, especially in rural and remote settings. This narrative review aims to identify in rural and remote primary health care settings the (1) correlation of antimicrobial resistance with antibiotic prescribing and volume of antibiotic use, (2) appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing, (3) risk factors associated with inappropriate use/prescribing of antibiotics, and (4) effective antimicrobial stewardship strategies.MethodsThe international literature was searched for English only articles between 2000 and 2020 using specified keywords. Seven electronic databases were searched: Scopus, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed, Ovid Medline and Ovid Emcare. Publication screening and analysis were conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute systematic review tools.ResultsFifty-one eligible articles were identified. Inappropriate and excessive antimicrobial prescribing and use directly led to increases in antimicrobial resistance. Increasing rurality of practice is associated with disproportionally higher rates of inappropriate prescribing compared to those in metropolitan areas. Physician knowledge, attitude and behaviour play important roles in mediating antimicrobial prescribing, with strong intrinsic and extrinsic influences including patient factors. Antimicrobial stewardship strategies in rural and remote primary health care settings focus on health care provider and patient education, clinician support systems, utility of antimicrobial resistance surveillance, and policy changes. Results of these interventions were generally positive with decreased antimicrobial resistance rates and improved appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing.ConclusionsInappropriate prescribing and excessive use of antimicrobials are an important contributor to the increasing resistance towards antimicrobial agents particularly in rural and remote primary health care. Antimicrobial stewardship programmes in the form of education, clinical support, surveillance, and policies have been mostly successful in reducing prescribing rates and inappropriate prescriptions. The narrative review highlighted the need for longer interventions to assess changes in antimicrobial resistance rates. The review also identified a lack of differentiation between rural and remote contexts and Indigenous health was inadequately addressed. Future research should have a greater focus on effective interventional components and patient perspectives.

Project description:BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth was expanded without the opportunity to extensively evaluate the adopted technology's usability.ObjectiveWe aimed to synthesize evidence on health professionals' perceptions regarding the usability of telehealth systems in the primary care of individuals with noncommunicable diseases (NCDs; hypertension and diabetes) from the COVID-19 pandemic onward.MethodsA systematic review was performed of clinical trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective observational studies, and studies that used qualitative data collection and analysis methods published in English, Spanish, and Portuguese from March 2020 onward. The databases queried were MEDLINE, Embase, BIREME, IEEE Xplore, BVS, Google Scholar, and grey literature. Studies involving health professionals who used telehealth systems in primary care and managed patients with NCDs from the COVID-19 pandemic onward were considered eligible. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed. Data were extracted to provide a narrative qualitative evidence synthesis of the included articles. The risk of bias and methodological quality of the included studies were analyzed. The primary outcome was the usability of telehealth systems, while the secondary outcomes were satisfaction and the contexts in which the telehealth system was used.ResultsWe included 11 of 417 retrieved studies, which had data from 248 health care professionals. These health care professionals were mostly doctors and nurses with prior experience in telehealth in high- and middle-income countries. Overall, 9 studies (82%) were qualitative studies and 2 (18%) were quasiexperimental or multisite trial studies. Moreover, 7 studies (64%) addressed diabetes, 1 (9%) addressed diabetes and hypertension, and 3 (27%) addressed chronic diseases. Most studies used a survey to assess usability. With a moderate confidence level, we concluded that health professionals considered the usability of telehealth systems to be good and felt comfortable and satisfied. Patients felt satisfied using telehealth. The most important predictor for using digital health technologies was ease of use. The main barriers were technological challenges, connectivity issues, low computer literacy, inability to perform complete physical examination, and lack of training. Although the usability of telehealth systems was considered good, there is a need for research that investigates factors that may influence the perceptions of telehealth usability, such as differences between private and public services; differences in the level of experience of professionals, including professional experience and experience with digital tools; and differences in gender, age groups, occupations, and settings.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic has generated incredible demand for virtual care. Professionals' favorable perceptions of the usability of telehealth indicate that it can facilitate access to quality care. Although there are still challenges to telehealth, more than infrastructure challenges, the most reported challenges were related to empowering people for digital health.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021296887; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=296887.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.21801/ppcrj.2022.82.6.