长期身体健康状况的远程监测:证据和差距图。

Siân de Bell, Zhivko Zhelev, Naomi Shaw, Alison Bethel, Rob Anderson, Jo Thompson Coon
{"title":"长期身体健康状况的远程监测:证据和差距图。","authors":"Siân de Bell, Zhivko Zhelev, Naomi Shaw, Alison Bethel, Rob Anderson, Jo Thompson Coon","doi":"10.3310/BVCF6192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Remote monitoring involves the measurement of an aspect of a patient's health without that person being seen face to face. It could benefit the individual and aid the efficient provision of health services. However, remote monitoring can be used to monitor different aspects of health in different ways. This evidence map allows users to find evidence on different forms of remote monitoring for different conditions easily to support the commissioning and implementation of interventions.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this map was to provide an overview of the volume, diversity and nature of recent systematic reviews on the effectiveness, acceptability and implementation of remote monitoring for adults with long-term physical health conditions.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, nine further databases and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews published between 2018 and March 2022, PROSPERO for continuing reviews, and completed citation chasing on included studies.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>(Study selection and Study appraisal): Included systematic reviews focused on adult populations with a long-term physical health condition and reported on the effectiveness, acceptability or implementation of remote monitoring. All forms of remote monitoring where data were passed to a healthcare professional as part of the intervention were included. Data were extracted on the characteristics of the remote monitoring intervention and outcomes assessed in the review. AMSTAR 2 was used to assess quality. Results were presented in an interactive evidence and gap map and summarised narratively. Stakeholder and public and patient involvement groups provided feedback throughout the project.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 72 systematic reviews. Of these, 61 focus on the effectiveness of remote monitoring and 24 on its acceptability and/or implementation, with some reviews reporting on both. The majority contained studies from North America and Europe (38 included studies from the United Kingdom). Patients with cardiovascular disease, diabetes and respiratory conditions were the most studied populations. Data were collected predominantly using common devices such as blood pressure monitors and transmitted via applications, websites, e-mail or patient portals, feedback provided via telephone call and by nurses. In terms of outcomes, most reviews focused on physical health, mental health and well-being, health service use, acceptability or implementation. Few reviews reported on less common conditions or on the views of carers or healthcare professionals. Most reviews were of low or critically low quality.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Many terms are used to describe remote monitoring; we searched as widely as possible but may have missed some relevant reviews. Poor reporting of remote monitoring interventions may mean some included reviews contain interventions that do not meet our definition, while relevant reviews might have been excluded. This also made the interpretation of results difficult.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and future work: </strong>The map provides an interactive, visual representation of evidence on the effectiveness of remote monitoring and its acceptability and successful implementation. This evidence could support the commissioning and delivery of remote monitoring interventions, while the limitations and gaps could inform further research and technological development. Future reviews should follow the guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and investigate the application of remote monitoring in less common conditions.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>A protocol was registered on the OSF registry (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6Q7P4).</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135450) as part of a series of evidence syntheses under award NIHR130538. For more information, visit https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR135450 and https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR130538. The report is published in full in <i>Health and Social Care Delivery Research</i>; Vol. 11, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further project information.</p>","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"11 22","pages":"1-74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Remote monitoring for long-term physical health conditions: an evidence and gap map.\",\"authors\":\"Siân de Bell, Zhivko Zhelev, Naomi Shaw, Alison Bethel, Rob Anderson, Jo Thompson Coon\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/BVCF6192\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Remote monitoring involves the measurement of an aspect of a patient's health without that person being seen face to face. It could benefit the individual and aid the efficient provision of health services. However, remote monitoring can be used to monitor different aspects of health in different ways. This evidence map allows users to find evidence on different forms of remote monitoring for different conditions easily to support the commissioning and implementation of interventions.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this map was to provide an overview of the volume, diversity and nature of recent systematic reviews on the effectiveness, acceptability and implementation of remote monitoring for adults with long-term physical health conditions.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, nine further databases and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews published between 2018 and March 2022, PROSPERO for continuing reviews, and completed citation chasing on included studies.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>(Study selection and Study appraisal): Included systematic reviews focused on adult populations with a long-term physical health condition and reported on the effectiveness, acceptability or implementation of remote monitoring. All forms of remote monitoring where data were passed to a healthcare professional as part of the intervention were included. Data were extracted on the characteristics of the remote monitoring intervention and outcomes assessed in the review. AMSTAR 2 was used to assess quality. Results were presented in an interactive evidence and gap map and summarised narratively. Stakeholder and public and patient involvement groups provided feedback throughout the project.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 72 systematic reviews. Of these, 61 focus on the effectiveness of remote monitoring and 24 on its acceptability and/or implementation, with some reviews reporting on both. The majority contained studies from North America and Europe (38 included studies from the United Kingdom). Patients with cardiovascular disease, diabetes and respiratory conditions were the most studied populations. Data were collected predominantly using common devices such as blood pressure monitors and transmitted via applications, websites, e-mail or patient portals, feedback provided via telephone call and by nurses. In terms of outcomes, most reviews focused on physical health, mental health and well-being, health service use, acceptability or implementation. Few reviews reported on less common conditions or on the views of carers or healthcare professionals. Most reviews were of low or critically low quality.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Many terms are used to describe remote monitoring; we searched as widely as possible but may have missed some relevant reviews. Poor reporting of remote monitoring interventions may mean some included reviews contain interventions that do not meet our definition, while relevant reviews might have been excluded. This also made the interpretation of results difficult.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and future work: </strong>The map provides an interactive, visual representation of evidence on the effectiveness of remote monitoring and its acceptability and successful implementation. This evidence could support the commissioning and delivery of remote monitoring interventions, while the limitations and gaps could inform further research and technological development. Future reviews should follow the guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and investigate the application of remote monitoring in less common conditions.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>A protocol was registered on the OSF registry (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6Q7P4).</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135450) as part of a series of evidence syntheses under award NIHR130538. For more information, visit https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR135450 and https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR130538. The report is published in full in <i>Health and Social Care Delivery Research</i>; Vol. 11, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further project information.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73204,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health and social care delivery research\",\"volume\":\"11 22\",\"pages\":\"1-74\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health and social care delivery research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/BVCF6192\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/BVCF6192","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:远程监测涉及对患者健康的一个方面进行测量,而不需要面对面地看到患者。它可以使个人受益,并有助于有效地提供保健服务。然而,远程监测可用于以不同方式监测健康的不同方面。该证据图使用户可以轻松地找到不同条件下不同形式的远程监测证据,以支持干预措施的调试和实施。目的:这张地图的目的是概述最近关于对长期身体健康状况的成年人进行远程监测的有效性、可接受性和实施的系统审查的数量、多样性和性质。数据来源:我们检索了MEDLINE、另外9个数据库和Epistemonikos,检索了2018年至2022年3月间发表的系统综述,检索了PROSPERO,检索了持续的综述,并完成了对纳入研究的引文追踪。综述方法:(研究选择和研究评价):纳入以长期身体健康状况的成年人群为重点的系统综述,并报告远程监测的有效性、可接受性或实施情况。包括将数据传递给医疗保健专业人员作为干预措施一部分的所有形式的远程监测。在回顾中提取了远程监测干预的特征和评估结果的数据。采用AMSTAR 2评价质量。结果以交互式证据和差距图的形式呈现,并以叙事方式进行总结。利益相关者、公众和患者参与小组在整个项目中提供反馈。结果:我们纳入了72篇系统评价。其中,61项侧重于远程监测的有效性,24项侧重于其可接受性和/或实施,并对两者进行了一些审查报告。大多数包含来自北美和欧洲的研究(38个包括来自英国的研究)。心血管疾病、糖尿病和呼吸系统疾病患者是研究最多的人群。数据主要使用血压监测仪等常见设备收集,并通过应用程序、网站、电子邮件或患者门户网站传输,通过电话和护士提供反馈。就结果而言,大多数审查侧重于身体健康、精神健康和福祉、卫生服务的使用、可接受性或执行情况。很少有评论报告了不常见的疾病或护理人员或医疗保健专业人员的观点。大多数评论的质量都很低或非常低。限制:许多术语用于描述远程监控;我们尽可能广泛地搜索,但可能遗漏了一些相关评论。远程监测干预的不良报告可能意味着一些纳入的综述包含不符合我们定义的干预措施,而相关的综述可能被排除在外。这也使得对结果的解释变得困难。结论和未来工作:该地图提供了关于远程监测有效性及其可接受性和成功实施的交互式可视化证据。这一证据可以支持远程监测干预措施的调试和交付,而限制和差距可以为进一步的研究和技术开发提供信息。今后的审查应遵循进行和报告系统审查的指导方针,并调查在不太常见的情况下远程监测的应用。审查注册:在OSF登记处注册了一项方案(https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6Q7P4).Funding:)。该奖项由国家卫生与保健研究所(NIHR)卫生服务和交付研究计划(NIHR奖励编号:NIHR135450)资助,作为NIHR130538下一系列证据综合的一部分。更多信息,请访问https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR135450和https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR130538。该报告全文发表在《卫生和社会保健服务研究》杂志上;第11卷,第22号。请参阅美国国立卫生研究院资助与奖励网站了解更多项目信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Remote monitoring for long-term physical health conditions: an evidence and gap map.

Background: Remote monitoring involves the measurement of an aspect of a patient's health without that person being seen face to face. It could benefit the individual and aid the efficient provision of health services. However, remote monitoring can be used to monitor different aspects of health in different ways. This evidence map allows users to find evidence on different forms of remote monitoring for different conditions easily to support the commissioning and implementation of interventions.

Objectives: The aim of this map was to provide an overview of the volume, diversity and nature of recent systematic reviews on the effectiveness, acceptability and implementation of remote monitoring for adults with long-term physical health conditions.

Data sources: We searched MEDLINE, nine further databases and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews published between 2018 and March 2022, PROSPERO for continuing reviews, and completed citation chasing on included studies.

Review methods: (Study selection and Study appraisal): Included systematic reviews focused on adult populations with a long-term physical health condition and reported on the effectiveness, acceptability or implementation of remote monitoring. All forms of remote monitoring where data were passed to a healthcare professional as part of the intervention were included. Data were extracted on the characteristics of the remote monitoring intervention and outcomes assessed in the review. AMSTAR 2 was used to assess quality. Results were presented in an interactive evidence and gap map and summarised narratively. Stakeholder and public and patient involvement groups provided feedback throughout the project.

Results: We included 72 systematic reviews. Of these, 61 focus on the effectiveness of remote monitoring and 24 on its acceptability and/or implementation, with some reviews reporting on both. The majority contained studies from North America and Europe (38 included studies from the United Kingdom). Patients with cardiovascular disease, diabetes and respiratory conditions were the most studied populations. Data were collected predominantly using common devices such as blood pressure monitors and transmitted via applications, websites, e-mail or patient portals, feedback provided via telephone call and by nurses. In terms of outcomes, most reviews focused on physical health, mental health and well-being, health service use, acceptability or implementation. Few reviews reported on less common conditions or on the views of carers or healthcare professionals. Most reviews were of low or critically low quality.

Limitations: Many terms are used to describe remote monitoring; we searched as widely as possible but may have missed some relevant reviews. Poor reporting of remote monitoring interventions may mean some included reviews contain interventions that do not meet our definition, while relevant reviews might have been excluded. This also made the interpretation of results difficult.

Conclusions and future work: The map provides an interactive, visual representation of evidence on the effectiveness of remote monitoring and its acceptability and successful implementation. This evidence could support the commissioning and delivery of remote monitoring interventions, while the limitations and gaps could inform further research and technological development. Future reviews should follow the guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and investigate the application of remote monitoring in less common conditions.

Review registration: A protocol was registered on the OSF registry (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6Q7P4).

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135450) as part of a series of evidence syntheses under award NIHR130538. For more information, visit https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR135450 and https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR130538. The report is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further project information.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Causes and solutions to workplace psychological ill-health for nurses, midwives and paramedics: the Care Under Pressure 2 realist review. Relationship between staff and quality of care in care homes: StaRQ mixed methods study. Practices of falls risk assessment and prevention in acute hospital settings: a realist investigation. Safer and more efficient vital signs monitoring protocols to identify the deteriorating patients in the general hospital ward: an observational study. Reducing health inequalities through general practice: a realist review and action framework.
×
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