Impact of consumer health informatics applications.

M Christopher Gibbons, Renee F Wilson, Lipika Samal, Christoph U Lehman, Kay Dickersin, Harold P Lehmann, Hanan Aboumatar, Joseph Finkelstein, Erica Shelton, Ritu Sharma, Eric B Bass
{"title":"Impact of consumer health informatics applications.","authors":"M Christopher Gibbons,&nbsp;Renee F Wilson,&nbsp;Lipika Samal,&nbsp;Christoph U Lehman,&nbsp;Kay Dickersin,&nbsp;Harold P Lehmann,&nbsp;Hanan Aboumatar,&nbsp;Joseph Finkelstein,&nbsp;Erica Shelton,&nbsp;Ritu Sharma,&nbsp;Eric B Bass","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of the report is to review the evidence on the impact of consumer health informatics (CHI) applications on health outcomes, to identify the knowledge gaps and to make recommendations for future research.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, and CINAHL databases, references in eligible articles and the table of contents of selected journals; and query of experts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Paired reviewers reviewed citations to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the impact of CHI applications, and all studies that addressed barriers to use of CHI applications. All studies were independently assessed for quality. All data was abstracted, graded, and reviewed by 2 different reviewers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred forty-six eligible articles were identified including 121 RCTs. Studies were very heterogeous and of variable quality. Four of five asthma care studies found significant positive impact of a CHI application on at least one healthcare process measure. In terms of the impact of CHI on intermediate health outcomes, significant positive impact was demonstrated in at least one intermediate health outcome of; all three identified breast cancer studies, 89 percent of 32 diet, exercise, physical activity, not obesity studies, all 7 alcohol abuse studies, 58 percent of 19 smoking cessation studies, 40 percent of 12 obesity studies, all 7 diabetes studies, 88 percent of 8 mental health studies, 25 percent of 4 asthma/COPD studies, and one of two menopause/HRT utilization studies. Thirteen additional single studies were identified and each found evidence of significant impact of a CHI application on one or more intermediate outcomes. Eight studies evaluated the effect of CHI on the doctor patient relationship. Five of these studies demonstrated significant positive impact of CHI on at least one aspect of the doctor patient relationship. In terms of the impact of CHI on clinical outcomes, significant positive impact was demonstrated in at least one clinical outcome of; one of three breast cancer studies, four of five diet, exercise, or physical activity studies, all seven mental health studies, all three identified diabetes studies. No studies included in this review found any evidence of consumer harm attributable to a CHI application. Evidence was insufficient to determine the economic impact of CHI applications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite study heterogeneity, quality variability, and some data paucity, available literature suggests that select CHI applications may effectively engage consumers, enhance traditional clinical interventions, and improve both intermediate and clinical health outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":72991,"journal":{"name":"Evidence report/technology assessment","volume":" 188","pages":"1-546"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4780989/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence report/technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the report is to review the evidence on the impact of consumer health informatics (CHI) applications on health outcomes, to identify the knowledge gaps and to make recommendations for future research.

Data sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, and CINAHL databases, references in eligible articles and the table of contents of selected journals; and query of experts.

Methods: Paired reviewers reviewed citations to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the impact of CHI applications, and all studies that addressed barriers to use of CHI applications. All studies were independently assessed for quality. All data was abstracted, graded, and reviewed by 2 different reviewers.

Results: One hundred forty-six eligible articles were identified including 121 RCTs. Studies were very heterogeous and of variable quality. Four of five asthma care studies found significant positive impact of a CHI application on at least one healthcare process measure. In terms of the impact of CHI on intermediate health outcomes, significant positive impact was demonstrated in at least one intermediate health outcome of; all three identified breast cancer studies, 89 percent of 32 diet, exercise, physical activity, not obesity studies, all 7 alcohol abuse studies, 58 percent of 19 smoking cessation studies, 40 percent of 12 obesity studies, all 7 diabetes studies, 88 percent of 8 mental health studies, 25 percent of 4 asthma/COPD studies, and one of two menopause/HRT utilization studies. Thirteen additional single studies were identified and each found evidence of significant impact of a CHI application on one or more intermediate outcomes. Eight studies evaluated the effect of CHI on the doctor patient relationship. Five of these studies demonstrated significant positive impact of CHI on at least one aspect of the doctor patient relationship. In terms of the impact of CHI on clinical outcomes, significant positive impact was demonstrated in at least one clinical outcome of; one of three breast cancer studies, four of five diet, exercise, or physical activity studies, all seven mental health studies, all three identified diabetes studies. No studies included in this review found any evidence of consumer harm attributable to a CHI application. Evidence was insufficient to determine the economic impact of CHI applications.

Conclusions: Despite study heterogeneity, quality variability, and some data paucity, available literature suggests that select CHI applications may effectively engage consumers, enhance traditional clinical interventions, and improve both intermediate and clinical health outcomes.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
消费者健康信息应用的影响。
目的:本报告的目的是审查消费者健康信息学(CHI)应用对健康结果影响的证据,确定知识差距,并为今后的研究提出建议。数据来源:检索MEDLINE、EMBASE、The Cochrane Library、Scopus和CINAHL数据库,检索符合条件的文章参考文献和选定期刊目录;和专家的询问。方法:配对审稿人审查引文,以确定CHI应用影响的随机对照试验(rct),以及所有涉及使用CHI应用障碍的研究。所有研究均独立评估质量。所有数据均由2位不同的审稿人进行提取、评分和评审。结果:纳入符合条件的文献146篇,其中rct 121篇。研究结果非常混杂,质量参差不齐。五分之四的哮喘护理研究发现,CHI应用对至少一项医疗保健过程测量有显著的积极影响。就CHI对中期健康结果的影响而言,至少有一项中期健康结果显示显着的积极影响;所有三项研究都确定了乳腺癌研究,32项饮食、运动、体育活动研究中的89%,非肥胖研究,所有7项酒精滥用研究,19项戒烟研究中的58%,12项肥胖研究中的40%,所有7项糖尿病研究,8项心理健康研究中的88%,4项哮喘/慢性阻塞性肺病研究中的25%,以及两项更年期/HRT利用研究中的一项。另外13项单独研究被确定,每项研究都发现了CHI应用对一个或多个中间结果有显著影响的证据。八项研究评估了CHI对医患关系的影响。其中五项研究表明,CHI至少对医患关系的一个方面有显著的积极影响。就CHI对临床结果的影响而言,至少有一项临床结果显示显着的积极影响;三分之一的乳腺癌研究,五分之四的饮食,运动或体育活动研究,七项心理健康研究,三项糖尿病研究。本综述中没有研究发现任何可归因于CHI应用的消费者危害的证据。证据不足以确定CHI应用的经济影响。结论:尽管研究存在异质性、质量可变性和一些数据缺乏,但现有文献表明,选择性CHI应用可以有效地吸引消费者,增强传统的临床干预,并改善中期和临床健康结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Maternal and Child Health: An Updated Systematic Review. Data Linkage Strategies to Advance Youth Suicide Prevention. Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease: An Updated Systematic Review. Health Information Exchange. Diagnosis and Treatment of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1