A systematic review of engagement reporting in remote measurement studies for health symptom tracking.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: White KM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9242990 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Despite the potential benefits of mobile mental health apps, real-world results indicate engagement issues because of low uptake and sustained use. This review examined how studies have measured and reported on user engagement indicators (UEIs) for mental health apps. METHODS:A systematic review of multiple databases was performed in July 2018 for studies of mental health apps for depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and anxiety that reported on UEIs, namely usability, user satisfaction, acceptability, and feasibility. The subjective and objective criteria used to assess UEIs, among other data, were extracted from each study. RESULTS:Of 925 results, 40 studies were eligible. Every study reported positive results for the usability, satisfaction, acceptability, or feasibility of the app. Of the 40 studies, 36 (90%) employed 371 indistinct subjective criteria that were assessed with surveys, interviews, or both, and 23 studies used custom subjective scales, rather than preexisting standardized assessment tools. A total of 25 studies (63%) used objective criteria-with 71 indistinct measures. No two studies used the same combination of subjective or objective criteria to assess UEIs of the app. CONCLUSIONS:The high heterogeneity and use of custom criteria to assess mental health apps in terms of usability, user satisfaction, acceptability, or feasibility present a challenge for understanding real-world low uptake of these apps. Every study reviewed claimed that UEIs for the app were rated highly, which suggests a need for the field to focus on engagement by creating reporting standards and more carefully considering claims.
| S-EPMC6839109 | biostudies-literature
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).
| S-EPMC6062692 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivePeople with long-term conditions require serial clinical assessments. Digital patient-reported symptoms collected between visits can inform these, especially if integrated into electronic health records (EHRs) and clinical workflows. This systematic review identified and summarized EHR-integrated systems to remotely collect patient-reported symptoms and examined their anticipated and realized benefits in long-term conditions.Materials and methodsWe searched Medline, Web of Science, and Embase. Inclusion criteria were symptom reporting systems in adults with long-term conditions; data integrated into the EHR; data collection outside of clinic; data used in clinical care. We synthesized data thematically. Benefits were assessed against a list of outcome indicators. We critically appraised studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.ResultsWe included 12 studies representing 10 systems. Seven were in oncology. Systems were technically and functionally heterogeneous, with the majority being fully integrated (data viewable in the EHR). Half of the systems enabled regular symptom tracking between visits. We identified 3 symptom report-guided clinical workflows: Consultation-only (data used during consultation, n = 5), alert-based (real-time alerts for providers, n = 4) and patient-initiated visits (n = 1). Few author-described anticipated benefits, primarily to improve communication and resultant health outcomes, were realized based on the study results, and were only supported by evidence from early-stage qualitative studies. Studies were primarily feasibility and pilot studies of acceptable quality.Discussion and conclusionsEHR-integrated remote symptom monitoring is possible, but there are few published efforts to inform development of these systems. Currently there is limited evidence that this improves care and outcomes, warranting future robust, quantitative studies of efficacy and effectiveness.
| S-EPMC7671621 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdult chronic heart failure mainly affects an elderly population with multiple comorbidities that often require frequent medical visits to prevent poor health outcomes. However, the heart failure disease process reduces their independence by reducing mobility, exercise tolerance, and cognitive decline. Remote care technologies can bridge the gap in care for these patients by allowing them to be followed up within the comfort of their home and encourage their self-care. However, patients, carers, and health care professionals need to engage with the technology for it to be useful.ObjectiveThis systematic review explores qualitative primary studies of remote care technologies used in heart failure, to determine the factors that affect user engagement with the technology. This is explored from the perspective of patients, carers, and health care professionals.MethodsRelevant studies published between January 1, 1990, and September 19, 2020, were identified from EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. These studies were then synthesized using thematic analysis. Relevant user experiences with remote care were extracted using line-by-line coding. These codes were summarized into secondary codes and core concepts, which were further merged into overarching themes that encapsulate user experience with remote care.ResultsThe review included 47 studies, which led to the generation of 5 overarching themes that affect engagement: (1) "Convenience" relates to time saved by the intervention; (2) "Clinical Care" relates to perceived quality of care and health outcomes; (3) "Communication" involves feedback and interaction between patients, staff, and carers; (4) "Education" concerns the tailored information provided; and (5) "Ease of Use" relates to accessibility and technical barriers to engagement. Each theme was applied to each user base of patient, carer, and health care professional in a different manner.ConclusionsThe 5 themes identified highlight aspects of remote care that facilitate engagement, and should be considered in both future design and trials evaluating these technologies.
| S-EPMC9021943 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Social media utilization is prevalent among reproductive-age women. The literature on how researchers engage women in studies using social media platforms is scarce. This systematic review analyzed participant engagement design in studies using social media and focused on pregnancy and infant health. METHODS:A literature search of EBSCO and PubMed databases was conducted. Included studies had to be completed with quantitative data, focus on pregnancy, postpartum or infant health, and use social media in the research process. A matrix of three engagement designs (passive, interactive, independent) and three research processes (recruitment, data analysis, intervention) was used for analysis. FINDINGS:Thirty-one articles that reported 30 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, four were randomized controlled trials (RCT), four were non-RCT interventions, and 22 were observational/descriptive studies. The main purpose of using social media was for recruitment (n = 16), data analysis (n = 6), intervention (n = 8), or both recruitment and intervention (n = 1). Passive engagement was a fundamental design approach in all studies to access a data source that was either the participant or the data provided by the participants in social media. Interactive engagement, mostly for recruitment and intervention, was to engage participants in completing study enrollment or in interacting with the study team or fellow participants. Independent engagement involved off-line activities and appeared sporadically in intervention studies. CONCLUSIONS:Passive and interactive engagement designs are more frequently used than independent engagement design. Researchers should select suitable designs when studying pregnancy and infant health using social media.
| S-EPMC7232087 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10871474 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMendelian randomization (MR) studies using Genetic risk scores (GRS) as an instrumental variable (IV) have increasingly been used to control for unmeasured confounding in observational healthcare databases. However, proper reporting of methodological issues is sparse in these studies. We aimed to review published papers related to MR studies and identify reporting problems.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review using the clinical articles published between 2009 and 2019. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases. We retrieved information from every MR study, including the tests performed to evaluate assumptions and the modelling approach used for estimation. Using our inclusion/exclusion criteria, finally, we identified 97 studies to conduct the review according to the PRISMA statement.ResultsOnly 66 (68%) of the studies empirically verified the first assumption (Relevance assumption), and 40 (41.2%) studies reported the appropriate tests (e.g., R2, F-test) to investigate the association. A total of 35.1% clearly stated and discussed theoretical justifications for the second and third assumptions. 30.9% of the studies used a two-stage least square, and 11.3% used the Wald estimator method for estimating IV. Also, 44.3% of the studies conducted a sensitivity analysis to illuminate the robustness of estimates for violations of the untestable assumptions.ConclusionsWe found that incompleteness of the justification of the assumptions for the instrumental variable in MR studies was a common problem in our selected studies. This may misdirect the findings of the studies.
| S-EPMC8761268 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe performed a systematic review to assess whether we can quantify the underreporting of adverse events (AEs) in the published medical literature documenting the results of clinical trials as compared with other nonpublished sources, and whether we can measure the impact this underreporting has on systematic reviews of adverse events.Methods and findingsStudies were identified from 15 databases (including MEDLINE and Embase) and by handsearching, reference checking, internet searches, and contacting experts. The last database searches were conducted in July 2016. There were 28 methodological evaluations that met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 9 studies compared the proportion of trials reporting adverse events by publication status. The median percentage of published documents with adverse events information was 46% compared to 95% in the corresponding unpublished documents. There was a similar pattern with unmatched studies, for which 43% of published studies contained adverse events information compared to 83% of unpublished studies. A total of 11 studies compared the numbers of adverse events in matched published and unpublished documents. The percentage of adverse events that would have been missed had each analysis relied only on the published versions varied between 43% and 100%, with a median of 64%. Within these 11 studies, 24 comparisons of named adverse events such as death, suicide, or respiratory adverse events were undertaken. In 18 of the 24 comparisons, the number of named adverse events was higher in unpublished than published documents. Additionally, 2 other studies demonstrated that there are substantially more types of adverse events reported in matched unpublished than published documents. There were 20 meta-analyses that reported the odds ratios (ORs) and/or risk ratios (RRs) for adverse events with and without unpublished data. Inclusion of unpublished data increased the precision of the pooled estimates (narrower 95% confidence intervals) in 15 of the 20 pooled analyses, but did not markedly change the direction or statistical significance of the risk in most cases. The main limitations of this review are that the included case examples represent only a small number amongst thousands of meta-analyses of harms and that the included studies may suffer from publication bias, whereby substantial differences between published and unpublished data are more likely to be published.ConclusionsThere is strong evidence that much of the information on adverse events remains unpublished and that the number and range of adverse events is higher in unpublished than in published versions of the same study. The inclusion of unpublished data can also reduce the imprecision of pooled effect estimates during meta-analysis of adverse events.
| S-EPMC5029817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract Background and Objectives The aging population places increasing demands on our healthcare system. Mobile health offers the potential to reduce this burden. The aim of this systematic review is to thematically synthesize qualitative evidence of older adults’ user engagement toward mobile health, and to generate relevant recommendations for intervention developers. Research Design and Methods A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, and Web of Science electronic databases from inception until February 2021. Papers on qualitative and mixed-methods studies that investigated older adults’ user engagement with a mobile health intervention were included. Relevant data were extracted and analyzed using thematic analysis. The Critical Appraisal Skills Program Qualitative Checklist was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Results Thirty-two articles were deemed eligible for inclusion in the review. Three overarching analytical themes emerged from the 25 descriptive themes generated by the line-by-line coding: the limited capabilities, the prerequisite of motivation, and the importance of social support. Discussion and Implications Successful development and implementation of future mobile health intervention for older adults will be challenging given the physical and psychological limitations and motivational barriers that older adults experience. Design adaptations and well-thought-out blended alternatives (i.e., combining mobile health with face-to-face support) might be potential solutions to improve older adults’ user engagement with mobile health interventions.
| S-EPMC10053647 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMental Health Literacy (MHL) is important for improving mental health and reducing inequities in treatment. The Mental Health Literacy Scale (MHLS) is a valid and reliable assessment tool for MHL. This systematic review will examine and compare the measurement properties of the MHLS in different languages, enabling academics, clinicians and policymakers to make informed judgements regarding its use in assessments.Methods and analysisThe review will adhere to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis and will be presented following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis 2020 checklist. The review will be conducted in four stages, including an initial search confined to PubMed, a search of electronic scientific databases PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, MEDLINE, Embase (Elsevier), PubMed (NLM) and ERIC, an examination of the reference lists of all papers to locate relevant publications and finally contacting the MHLS original author to identify validation studies that the searches will not retrieve. These phases will assist us in locating studies that evaluate the measurement properties of MHLS across various populations, demographics and contexts. The search will focus on articles published in English between May 2015 and December 2023. The methodological quality of the studies will be evaluated using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist, and a comprehensive qualitative and quantitative data synthesis will be performed.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. The publication will be in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42023430924.
| S-EPMC10989124 | biostudies-literature