Electronic, mobile and telehealth tools for vulnerable patients with chronic disease: a systematic review and realist synthesis. Issue 8 (29th August 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Parker, Sharon; Prince, Amy; Thomas, Louise; Song, Hyun; Milosevic, Diana; Harris, Mark Fort
• Other Names: author non-byline.; Haggerty Jeannie author non-byline.; Levesque Jean-fred author non-byline.; Harris Mark author non-byline.; Dahrouge Simone author non-byline.; Lewis Virginia author non-byline.; Scott Cathie author non-byline.; Stocks Nigel author non-byline.
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 8:Issue 8(2018)
• Publication Date: 2018-08-29
• Subjects: telehealth -- ehealth -- chronic disease -- long term conditions -- vulnerable population -- realist synthesis; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019192
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: The 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. Design: We 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 participants: Studies 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. Results: Eighteen 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. Conclusions: Research 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.