Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31890630›Full record

ReviewInternet interventions2019

A narrative synthesis systematic review of digital self-monitoring interventions for middle-aged and older adults.

Sara Laureen Bartels, Rosalia J M van Knippenberg, Fania C M Dassen, Eric Asaba, Ann-Helen Patomella, Camilla Malinowsky, Frans R J Verhey, Marjolein E de Vugt

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Internet interventions, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Family informatics.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sara Laureen BartelsDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology and Alzheimer Centre Limburg, School for Mental Health and Neurosciences, Maastricht University, Postbus 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Rosalia J M van KnippenbergDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology and Alzheimer Centre Limburg, School for Mental Health and Neurosciences, Maastricht University, Postbus 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Fania C M DassenDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology and Alzheimer Centre Limburg, School for Mental Health and Neurosciences, Maastricht University, Postbus 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Eric AsabaDivision of Occupational Therapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care Science and Society (NVS), Karolinska Institutet, Fack 23 200, SE-141 83 Huddinge, Sweden.
Ann-Helen PatomellaDivision of Occupational Therapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care Science and Society (NVS), Karolinska Institutet, Fack 23 200, SE-141 83 Huddinge, Sweden.
Camilla MalinowskyDivision of Occupational Therapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care Science and Society (NVS), Karolinska Institutet, Fack 23 200, SE-141 83 Huddinge, Sweden.
Frans R J VerheyDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology and Alzheimer Centre Limburg, School for Mental Health and Neurosciences, Maastricht University, Postbus 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Marjolein E de VugtDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology and Alzheimer Centre Limburg, School for Mental Health and Neurosciences, Maastricht University, Postbus 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NLKarolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSelf-monitoring is crucial to raise awareness for own behaviors and emotions, and thus facilitate self-management. The composition of self-monitoring within interventions, however, varies and guidelines are currently unavailable. This review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of technology-based self-monitoring interventions that intend to improve health in middle-aged and older adults (>45 years).

methodsFive online databases were systematically searched and articles were independently screened. A narrative synthesis of 26 studies with 21 unique interventions was conducted. Primary focus lay on the composition of self-monitoring within interventions, including technology used, health-aspects monitored, and type of feedback provided. Secondly, the usability of/adherence to the self-monitoring treatment, intervention effects, and their sustainability were examined.

findingsStudies concentrated on middle-aged adults (mean of 51 years). Mobile technologies seem necessary to ensure flexible self-monitoring in everyday life. Social health aspects were rarely monitored. Mechanisms and the sustainability of intervention effect are understudied.

conclusionDigital self-monitoring technologies hold promise for future trials as they seem suitable to understand and support health-related self-management. Key elements including automatic and personal feedback following the blended care principle were highlighted and may guide study designs. Prospectively, research is especially needed to study sustained self-monitoring to support disease prevention and lasting lifestyle changes.

Indexed as

InterventionMiddle-aged and older adultsMobile technologyMomentary assessmentSelf-monitoring

Identifiers

PMID31890630
PMCPMC6926211
OpenAlexW2981114363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.