Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36256831›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

eHealth in Care Coordination for Older Adults Living at Home: Scoping Review.

Hilde Marie Hunsbedt Fjellså, Anne Marie Lunde Husebø, Marianne Storm

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hilde Marie Hunsbedt FjellsåDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-1292-8538
Anne Marie Lunde HusebøDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-7476-851X
Marianne StormDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-1139-5947
Molde University College · NOStavanger University Hospital · NOUniversity of Stavanger · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe population of older adults is projected to increase, potentially resulting in more older adults living with chronic illnesses or multimorbidity. Living with chronic illnesses increases the need for coordinated health care services. Older adults want to manage their illnesses themselves, and many are positive about using eHealth for care coordination (CC). CC can help older adults navigate the health care system and improve information sharing.

objectiveThis study aimed to map the research literature on eHealth used in CC for older adults living at home. This study assessed CC activities, outcomes, and factors influencing the use of eHealth in CC reported by older adults and health care professionals.

methodsWe used a scoping review methodology. We searched four databases-MEDLINE, CINAHL, Academic Scoping Premier, and Scopus-from 2009 to 2021 for research articles. We screened 630 records using the inclusion criteria (older adults aged >65 years, primary health care setting, description of an eHealth program or intervention or measure or experiences with the use of eHealth, and inclusion of CC or relevant activities as described in the Care Coordination Atlas). The analysis of the included articles consisted of both a descriptive and thematic analysis.

resultsA total of 16 studies were included in this scoping review. Of these 16 studies, 12 (75%) had a quantitative design, and the samples of the included studies varied in size. The categories of eHealth used for CC among older adults living at home were electronic health records and patient portals, telehealth monitoring solutions, and telephone only. The CC activity communication was evident in all studies (16/16, 100%). The results on patient- and system-level outcomes were mixed; however, most studies (7/16, 44%) reported improved mental and physical health and reduced rehospitalization and hospital admission rates. Observing changes in patients' health was a facilitator for health care professionals using eHealth in CC. When using eHealth in CC, available support to the patient, personal continuity, and a sense of security and safety were facilitators for older adults. Individual characteristics and lack of experience, confidence, and knowledge were barriers to older adults' use of eHealth. Health care professionals reported barriers such as increased workload and hampered communication.

conclusionsWe mapped the research literature on eHealth-enabled CC for older adults living at home. We did not map the gray literature as we aimed to map the research literature (peer-reviewed research articles published in academic journals). The study results showed that using eHealth to coordinate care for older adults who live at home is promising. To ensure the successful use of eHealth in CC, we recommend customized eHealth-enabled health care services for older adults, including individualized education and support.

Indexed as

TelemedicineAgedElectronic Health RecordsHealth PersonnelHumanscare coordinationeHealthmobile phoneolder adultsprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID36256831
PMCPMC9627466
OpenAlexW4300018842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.