Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30158214›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2018

Electronic, mobile and telehealth tools for vulnerable patients with chronic disease: a systematic review and realist synthesis.

Sharon Parker, Amy Prince, Louise Thomas, Hyun Song, Diana Milosevic, Mark Fort Harris, IMPACT Study Group

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

69 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Telehealth Trends and Hypertension Management Among Rural and Medicaid Patients After COVID-19.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sharon ParkerCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Amy PrinceSouth Western Sydney Primary Health Network, Campbelltown, New South Wales, Australia.
Louise ThomasCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Hyun SongCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Diana MilosevicPlanning Unit, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Mark Fort HarrisCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
IMPACT Study Group

Funding

CIHR TTF-130729
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objective of this review was to assess the benefit of using electronic, mobile and telehealth tools for vulnerable patients with chronic disease and explore the mechanisms by which these impact patient self-efficacy and self-management.

designWe searched MEDLINE, all evidence-based medicine, CINAHL, Embase and PsychINFO covering the period 2009 to 2018 for electronic, mobile or telehealth interventions. Quality was assessed according to rigour and relevance. Those studies providing a richer description ('thick') were synthesised using a realist matrix. SETTING AND

participantsStudies of any design conducted in community-based primary care involving adults with one or more diagnosed chronic health condition and vulnerability due to demographic, geographic, economic and/or cultural characteristics.

resultsEighteen trials were identified targeting a range of chronic conditions and vulnerabilities. The data provided limited insight into the mechanisms underpinning these interventions, most of which sought to persuade vulnerable patients into believing they could self-manage their conditions through improved symptom monitoring, education and support and goal setting. Patients were relatively passive in the interaction, and the level of patient response attributed to their intrinsic level of motivation. Health literacy, which may be confounded with motivation, was only measured in one study, and eHealth literacy was not assessed.

conclusionsResearch incorporating these tools with vulnerable groups is not comprehensive. Apart from intrinsic motivation, health literacy may also influence the reaction of vulnerable groups to technology. Social persuasion was the main way interventions sought to achieve better self-management. Efforts to engage patients by healthcare providers were lower than expected. Use of social networks or other eHealth mechanisms to link patients and provide opportunities for vicarious experience could be further explored in relation to vulnerable groups. Future research could also assess health and eHealth literacy and differentiate the specific needs for vulnerable groups when implementing health technologies.

Indexed as

Self EfficacySelf-ManagementSmartphoneTelemedicineTelephoneVulnerable PopulationsChronic DiseaseElectronicsHealth LiteracyHumansPrimary Health CareSocial Networkingchronic diseaseehealthlong term conditionsrealist synthesistelehealthvulnerable population

Identifiers

PMID30158214
PMCPMC6119429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.