Use Of eHealth Interventions Research Articles

PGI7 - The Place of Ehealth Interventions in the Management Pathway of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (Ibd) Patients: A Systematic Review

Electronic-health (eHealth) interventions are becoming increasingly important in the management of IBD patients, with increasing evidence suggesting improved disease and patient outcomes and reduced resource use. Interventional studies were systematically identified via MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Studies were identified by two independent reviewers following pre-specified study selection criteria. Studies were included if they assessed any eHealth intervention and reported outcomes related to quality of life (QoL), disease activity, adherence or patient satisfaction. Twenty five studies met the inclusion criteria of the review. Five assessed tele-monitoring technologies based on faecal calprotectin (FC) as a biomarker of disease activity, allowing for remote patient monitoring; five looked at the impact on patient and disease outcomes of educational websites and mobile applications. Five of the studies were interventional, comparing the impact of eHealth interventions with a standard of care follow-up. Quality of life and patients satisfaction outcomes were commonly reported (n=7 and n=6, respectively). Cost and resource utilisation impact of eHealth interventions was reported in two studies. Overall eHealth intervention were reported to improve patient satisfaction in general as well as compared to standard of care monitoring. Similarly, QoL was reported significantly higher among patients who were under eHealth intervention. Mixed results across assessed interventions were reported for other outcomes such as adherence and improvements in disease activity. The use of eHealth interventions is likely to be a key development in the future management of chronic diseases such as IBD. Although there is currently no specific consensus on preference of technology, the benefits for patients and health systems across interventions are becoming increasingly clear. Better quality research is needed to show robust benefits from eHealth interventions.

Evaluation of a medication monitor-based treatment strategy for drug-sensitive tuberculosis patients in China: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

BackgroundTreatment for drug-sensitive tuberculosis (TB) is taken for at least 6 months and problems with adherence are common. Therefore, there is substantial interest in the possible use of eHealth interventions to support patients to take their treatment. Electronic medication monitors have been shown to improve adherence to TB medication, but the impact on clinical outcomes is unknown. We aim to evaluate the impact of a medication monitor-based treatment strategy for drug-sensitive TB patients on a composite poor outcome measured over 18 months from start of TB treatment.Methods/designWe will conduct an open, pragmatic, cluster randomised superiority trial, with 24 counties/districts in three provinces in China, randomised 1:1 to implement the intervention or standard of care. Adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with a new episode of GeneXpert-positive and rifampicin-sensitive pulmonary TB, who plan to be in the study area for the next 18 months, and will receive daily fixed-dose combination tablets for 6 months of treatment are eligible. The intervention is centred around a medication monitor that holds a 1-month supply of medication and has three key functions: as an audio and visual reminder for patients to take their daily medication; reminds patients of upcoming monthly visit; and records date and time whenever the box is opened. At the monthly follow-up visit, the doctor downloads these data to generate a graphical display of the last month’s adherence record for discussion with the patient and potentially to switch the patient to more intensive management. The primary outcome is a composite poor outcome measured over 18 months from start of TB treatment, defined as either of poor outcome at the end of treatment (death, treatment failure, or loss to follow-up) or subsequent recurrence (culture positive for TB at 12 or 18 months or re-starting TB treatment in the follow-up period). An economic evaluation will also be conducted as part of this study.DiscussionThis trial will assess whether a medication monitor-based treatment strategy can improve clinical outcomes for TB patients. Several trials of other eHealth interventions for TB treatment are ongoing and are summarised in this paper. This trial will provide an important part of the emerging evidence base for the potential of eHealth to improve TB treatment outcomes.Trial registrationThis trial was registered with Current Controlled Trials (identifier: ISRCTN35812455). Registered on May 19, 2016.

EHealth interventions for parents in neonatal intensive care units: a systematic review.

As technology becomes increasingly more advanced, particularly video technology and interactive learning platforms, some neonatal intensive care units are embracing electronic health (eHealth) technologies to enhance and expand their family-centered care environments. Despite the emergence of eHealth, there has been a lack of systematic evaluation of its effectiveness thus far. To examine the effect of eHealth interventions used in neonatal intensive care units on parent-related and infant outcomes. This review considered studies that included parents or primary caregivers of infants requiring care in a neonatal intensive care unit. This review considered studies that evaluated any eHealth interventions in neonatal intensive care units, including education (e.g. web-based platforms, mobile applications); communication (e.g. videos, SMS or text messaging), or a combination of both. Comparators included no eHealth interventions and/or standard care. Experimental and epidemiological study designs including randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, before and after studies, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies, and analytical cross sectional studies were considered. This review considered studies that included parent-related outcomes (use and acceptance, stress/anxiety, confidence, financial impact, satisfaction and technical issues) and neonatal outcomes (length of stay, postmenstrual age at discharge, parental presence and visits). A systematic search was undertaken across four databases to retrieve published studies in English from inception to November 18, 2016. Critical appraisal was undertaken by two independent reviewers using standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI-SUMARI). Quantitative data were extracted from included studies independently by two reviewers using the standardized data extraction tool from JBI-SUMARI. A comprehensive meta-analysis for all outcomes was not possible and data has been reported narratively for all outcomes. Eight studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The majority of the studies were low to very low quality. The study design and type of eHealth technology examined varied greatly. There appears to be growing interest in the topic as over half of the included studies were published within the past two years. Primary findings suggest parent acceptance and use of eHealth interventions but an unclear impact on neonatal outcomes, particularly on length of stay, a commonly reported neonatal outcome. Due to the variation in eHealth interventions, and heterogeneity across studies, meta-analysis was not possible. Numerous single studies and small sample sizes limited the degree of adequate strength to determine statistical differences across outcomes. While heterogeneity across studies precluded meta-analysis, consistent trends across all studies examining parental acceptance of eHealth interventions indicate that parents are willing to accept eHealth interventions as part of their neonatal intensive care, suggesting that the incorporation and evaluation of eHealth interventions in the neonatal intensive care unit setting is warranted. Further high quality studies are needed with larger sample sizes to detect changes in outcomes. As eHealth intervention studies move beyond feasibility and implementation, there is a demand for randomized control trials to examine the effect of eHealth interventions on parent and neonatal outcomes compared to usual care. Future studies should consider reporting of outcomes using standardized measures which would allow comparison across eHealth interventions in subsequent reviews.

Acceptance and barriers to access of occupational e-mental health: cross-sectional findings from a health-risk population of employees.

Occupational e-mental-health (OEMH) may extend existing instruments for preservation or restoration of health and work ability. As a key precondition to efficient implementation, this study examined acceptance and person-centered barriers to potential uptake of OEMH for work-related distress in employees with an elevated risk of early retirement. Within the framework of the "Third German Sociomedical Panel of Employees", 1829 employees with prior sickness absence payments filled out a self-administered questionnaire. Participants had a mean age of 49.93years (SD = 4.06). 6.2% indicated prior use of eHealth interventions. Potential predictors of acceptance of OEMH were examined based on the "Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology" (UTAUT) extended by work ability, mental health, eHealth literacy and demographic characteristics. 89.1% (n = 1579) showed low to moderate acceptance (M = 2.20, SD = 1.05, range 1-5). A path analysis revealed significant, positive direct effects of UTAUT predictors on acceptance (performance expectancy: 0.48, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001; effort expectancy: 0.20, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001; social influence: 0.28, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001).Online time and frequency of online health information search were further positive direct predictors of acceptance. Model fit was good [χ 2(7) = 12.91, p = 0.07, RMSEA = 0.02, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 0.99, SRMR = 0.01]. Attitudes towards OEMH are rather disadvantageous in the studied risk group. Implementation of OEMH, therefore, requires a-priori education including promotion of awareness, favorable attitudes regarding efficacy and usability in a collaborative approach.

Interdisciplinary eHealth Practice in Cancer Care: A Review of the Literature.

This review aimed to identify research that described how eHealth facilitates interdisciplinary cancer care and to understand the ways in which eHealth innovations are being used in this setting. An integrative review of eHealth interventions used for interdisciplinary care for people with cancer was conducted by systematically searching research databases in March 2015, and repeated in September 2016. Searches resulted in 8531 citations, of which 140 were retrieved and scanned in full, with twenty-six studies included in the review. Analysis of data extracted from the included articles revealed five broad themes: (i) data collection and accessibility; (ii) virtual multidisciplinary teams; (iii) communication between individuals involved in the delivery of health services; (iv) communication pathways between patients and cancer care teams; and (v) health professional-led change. Use of eHealth interventions in cancer care was widespread, particularly to support interdisciplinary care. However, research has focused on development and implementation of interventions, rather than on long-term impact. Further research is warranted to explore design, evaluation, and long-term sustainability of eHealth systems and interventions in interdisciplinary cancer care. Technology evolves quickly and researchers need to provide health professionals with timely guidance on how best to respond to new technologies in the health sector.

EHealth interventions for people with chronic kidney disease

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with high morbidity and death, which increases as CKD progresses to end‐stage kidney disease (ESKD). There has been increasing interest in developing innovative, effective and cost‐efficient methods to engage with patient populations and improve health behaviours and outcomes. Worldwide there has been a tremendous increase in the use of technologies, with increasing interest in using eHealth interventions to improve patient access to relevant health information, enhance the quality of healthcare and encourage the adoption of healthy behaviours. Objectives: This review aims to evaluate the benefits and harms of using eHealth interventions to change health behaviours in people with CKD. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 14 January 2019 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐RCTs using an eHealth intervention to promote behaviour change in people with CKD were included. There were no restrictions on outcomes, language or publication type. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. Main results: We included 43 studies with 6617 participants that evaluated the impact of an eHealth intervention in people with CKD. Included studies were heterogeneous in terms of eHealth modalities employed, type of intervention, CKD population studied and outcomes assessed. The majority of studies (39 studies) were conducted in an adult population, with 16 studies (37%) conducted in those on dialysis, 11 studies (26%) in the pre‐dialysis population, 15 studies (35%) in transplant recipients and 1 studies (2%) in transplant candidates We identified six different eHealth modalities including: Telehealth; mobile or tablet application; text or email messages; electronic monitors; internet/websites; and video or DVD. Three studies used a combination of eHealth interventions. Interventions were categorised into six types: educational; reminder systems; self‐monitoring; behavioural counselling; clinical decision‐aid; and mixed intervention types. We identified 98 outcomes, which were categorised into nine domains: blood pressure (9 studies); biochemical parameters (6 studies); clinical end‐points (16 studies); dietary intake (3 studies); quality of life (9 studies); medication adherence (10 studies); behaviour (7 studies); physical activity (1 study); and cost‐effectiveness (7 studies). Only three outcomes could be meta‐analysed as there was substantial heterogeneity with respect to study population and eHealth modalities utilised. There was found to be a reduction in interdialytic weight gain of 0.13kg (4 studies, 335 participants: MD ‐0.13, 95% CI ‐0.28 to 0.01; I2 = 0%) and a reduction in dietary sodium intake of 197 mg/day (2 studies, 181 participants: MD ‐197, 95% CI ‐540.7 to 146.8; I2 = 0%). Both dietary sodium and fluid management outcomes were graded as being of low evidence due to high or unclear risk of bias and indirectness (interdialytic weight gain) and high or unclear risk of bias and imprecision (dietary sodium intake). Three studies reported death (2799 participants, 146 events), with 45 deaths/1000 cases compared to standard care of 61 deaths/1000 cases (RR 0.74, CI 0.53 to 1.03; P = 0.08). We are uncertain whether using eHealth interventions, in addition to usual care, impact on the number of deaths as the certainty of this evidence was graded as low due to high or unclear risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision. Authors' conclusions: eHealth interventions may improve the management of dietary sodium intake and fluid management. However, overall these data suggest that current evidence for the use of eHealth interventions in the CKD population is of low quality, with uncertain effects due to methodological limitations and heterogeneity of eHealth modalities and intervention types. Our review has highlighted the need for robust, high quality research that reports a core (minimum) data set to enable meaningful evaluation of the literature.

The spinal stenosis pedometer and nutrition lifestyle intervention (SSPANLI) randomized controlled trial protocol.

BackgroundBecause of symptoms, people with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) are often inactive, and this sedentary behaviour implies risk for diseases including obesity. Research has identified body mass index as the most powerful predictor of function in LSS. This suggests that function may be improved by targeting weight as a modifiable factor. An e-health lifestyle intervention was developed aimed at reducing fat mass and increasing physical activity in people with LSS. The main components of this intervention include pedometer-based physical activity promotion and nutrition education.Methods/DesignThe Spinal Stenosis Pedometer and Nutrition Lifestyle Intervention (SSPANLI) was developed and piloted with 10 individuals. The protocol for a randomized controlled trail comparing the SSPANLI intervention to usual non-surgical care follows. One hundred six (106) overweight or obese individuals with LSS will be recruited. Baseline and follow-up testing includes dual energy x-ray absorptiometry, blood draw, 3-day food record, 7-day accelerometry, questionnaire, maximal oxygen consumption, neurological exam, balance testing and a Self-Paced Walking Test. Intervention: During Week 1, the intervention group will receive a pedometer, and a personalized consultation with both a Dietitian and an exercise specialist. For 12 weeks participants will log on to the e-health website to access personal step goals, walking maps, nutrition videos, and motivational quotes. Participants will also have access to in-person Coffee Talk meetings every 3 weeks, and meet with the Dietitian and exercise specialist at week 6. The control group will proceed with usual care for the 12-week period. Follow-up testing will occur at Weeks 13 and 24.DiscussionThis lifestyle intervention has the potential to provide a unique, non-surgical management option for people with LSS. Through decreased fat mass and increased function, we may reduce risk for obesity, chronic diseases of inactivity, and pain. The use of e-health interventions provides an opportunity for patients to become more involved in managing their own health. Behaviour changes including increased physical activity, and improved dietary habits promote overall health and quality of life, and may decrease future health care needs in this population.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT01902979

EHealth communication and behavior change: promise and performance

Traditional health communication interventions have often failed to show significant changes in people's behaviors. Guidance from social semiotic frameworks suggests that health communication interventions can be improved by incorporating greater participation by the intended audiences of users, paying greater attention to social contexts, and increasing broad use of integrated multimedia dissemination strategies. The use of eHealth communication has great promise to influence behavioral health outcomes, given its enhanced features of interactivity, multimodality, mass customization, and the opportunity for users to also be producers. The first 15 years of scientific evidence about the use of eHealth interventions suggests that, overall, such strategies are gaining rapid acceptance worldwide, improve user engagement, and often show significant positive effects on health behaviors in diverse populations and across a wide range of health conditions. Challenges remain, however, to learn how to best use eHealth communication to improve information access for vulnerable populations, to effectively leverage the power of new media channels, and to discover the longer-term effects of eHealth communication on public health. This article reviews key issues and evidence from eHealth studies and recommends a greater application of strategic semiotic principles in future eHealth communication research and interventions.