针对淋巴水肿患者的电子健康和移动健康干预措施的系统性审查

Andrea Mangion, Bruno Ivasic, Neil Piller
{"title":"针对淋巴水肿患者的电子健康和移动健康干预措施的系统性审查","authors":"Andrea Mangion,&nbsp;Bruno Ivasic,&nbsp;Neil Piller","doi":"10.1016/j.ceh.2024.08.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Lymphedema is a chronic inflammatory disease that causes chronic swelling in the affected area, necessitating daily treatment. Millions of people worldwide are affected. The investigation of strategies to improve the overall health of patients, such as through the utilisation of electronic health (eHealth), is justified considering the ongoing burden of daily self-care. This research aimed to (a) identify current published research in eHealth and mobile health (mHealth) interventions for patients living with lymphedema; (b) assess feasibility and efficacy of the interventions; and (c) understand whether intervention adherence was affected by using eHealth. A systematic review was undertaken. Seven databases including MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and IEEE Xplore were searched. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were used. 1857 studies were identified through the database search with 9 meeting the inclusion criteria for a total of 1031 participants. There were 3 types of eHealth, including instructive online content, telehealth, and digital gaming. The efficacy of various eHealth and mHealth modalities was demonstrated in areas such as lymphedema outcomes, self-care, psychosocial outcomes, and disease comprehension. Reports of feasibility demonstrated that eHealth modalities were generally well accepted or preferred over conventional methods. 7 studies reported or discussed adherence and provided insight into the relationship between the design of the eHealth tool and the completion of the intervention. Several distinct categories of eHealth and mHealth interventions were shown to improve disease comprehension, psychosocial and lymphedema outcomes. Findings from this systematic review may have an impact on the design of future studies in this domain, including consideration of early user acceptance testing when developing eHealth tools. With the ongoing progress in eHealth technology, further investigation into eHealth is warranted given the encouraging results observed in a limited number of studies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100268,"journal":{"name":"Clinical eHealth","volume":"7 ","pages":"Pages 120-132"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2588914124000108/pdfft?md5=c54858a4e940ccc380deee2df6ac4e8f&pid=1-s2.0-S2588914124000108-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review of eHealth and mHealth interventions for lymphedema patients\",\"authors\":\"Andrea Mangion,&nbsp;Bruno Ivasic,&nbsp;Neil Piller\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ceh.2024.08.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Lymphedema is a chronic inflammatory disease that causes chronic swelling in the affected area, necessitating daily treatment. Millions of people worldwide are affected. The investigation of strategies to improve the overall health of patients, such as through the utilisation of electronic health (eHealth), is justified considering the ongoing burden of daily self-care. This research aimed to (a) identify current published research in eHealth and mobile health (mHealth) interventions for patients living with lymphedema; (b) assess feasibility and efficacy of the interventions; and (c) understand whether intervention adherence was affected by using eHealth. A systematic review was undertaken. Seven databases including MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and IEEE Xplore were searched. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were used. 1857 studies were identified through the database search with 9 meeting the inclusion criteria for a total of 1031 participants. There were 3 types of eHealth, including instructive online content, telehealth, and digital gaming. The efficacy of various eHealth and mHealth modalities was demonstrated in areas such as lymphedema outcomes, self-care, psychosocial outcomes, and disease comprehension. Reports of feasibility demonstrated that eHealth modalities were generally well accepted or preferred over conventional methods. 7 studies reported or discussed adherence and provided insight into the relationship between the design of the eHealth tool and the completion of the intervention. Several distinct categories of eHealth and mHealth interventions were shown to improve disease comprehension, psychosocial and lymphedema outcomes. Findings from this systematic review may have an impact on the design of future studies in this domain, including consideration of early user acceptance testing when developing eHealth tools. With the ongoing progress in eHealth technology, further investigation into eHealth is warranted given the encouraging results observed in a limited number of studies.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100268,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical eHealth\",\"volume\":\"7 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 120-132\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2588914124000108/pdfft?md5=c54858a4e940ccc380deee2df6ac4e8f&pid=1-s2.0-S2588914124000108-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical eHealth\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2588914124000108\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical eHealth","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2588914124000108","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

淋巴水肿是一种慢性炎症性疾病,会导致患处长期肿胀,需要每天进行治疗。全世界有数百万人受到影响。考虑到日常自我护理的持续负担,有必要研究改善患者整体健康的策略,如通过利用电子健康(eHealth)。本研究旨在:(a)确定目前已发表的针对淋巴水肿患者的电子健康和移动健康(mHealth)干预研究;(b)评估干预的可行性和有效性;以及(c)了解使用电子健康是否会影响干预的坚持性。我们开展了一项系统性研究。检索了七个数据库,包括 MEDLINE、Scopus、Web of Science、CINAHL、Cochrane Library、PsycINFO 和 IEEE Xplore。采用了《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses)。通过数据库搜索确定了 1857 项研究,其中 9 项符合纳入标准,共有 1031 名参与者。电子健康有三种类型,包括指导性在线内容、远程保健和数字游戏。各种电子健康和移动健康模式在淋巴水肿疗效、自我护理、社会心理疗效和疾病理解等方面的疗效得到了证实。有关可行性的报告显示,电子健康模式普遍被广泛接受,或比传统方法更受青睐。有 7 项研究报告或讨论了坚持使用的问题,并深入探讨了电子健康工具的设计与完成干预之间的关系。研究表明,几类不同的电子健康和移动健康干预措施可改善疾病理解、社会心理和淋巴水肿的治疗效果。本系统综述的研究结果可能会对该领域未来研究的设计产生影响,包括在开发电子健康工具时考虑早期用户接受度测试。随着电子健康技术的不断进步,鉴于在有限的几项研究中观察到的令人鼓舞的结果,有必要对电子健康进行进一步的调查。
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
A systematic review of eHealth and mHealth interventions for lymphedema patients

Lymphedema is a chronic inflammatory disease that causes chronic swelling in the affected area, necessitating daily treatment. Millions of people worldwide are affected. The investigation of strategies to improve the overall health of patients, such as through the utilisation of electronic health (eHealth), is justified considering the ongoing burden of daily self-care. This research aimed to (a) identify current published research in eHealth and mobile health (mHealth) interventions for patients living with lymphedema; (b) assess feasibility and efficacy of the interventions; and (c) understand whether intervention adherence was affected by using eHealth. A systematic review was undertaken. Seven databases including MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and IEEE Xplore were searched. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were used. 1857 studies were identified through the database search with 9 meeting the inclusion criteria for a total of 1031 participants. There were 3 types of eHealth, including instructive online content, telehealth, and digital gaming. The efficacy of various eHealth and mHealth modalities was demonstrated in areas such as lymphedema outcomes, self-care, psychosocial outcomes, and disease comprehension. Reports of feasibility demonstrated that eHealth modalities were generally well accepted or preferred over conventional methods. 7 studies reported or discussed adherence and provided insight into the relationship between the design of the eHealth tool and the completion of the intervention. Several distinct categories of eHealth and mHealth interventions were shown to improve disease comprehension, psychosocial and lymphedema outcomes. Findings from this systematic review may have an impact on the design of future studies in this domain, including consideration of early user acceptance testing when developing eHealth tools. With the ongoing progress in eHealth technology, further investigation into eHealth is warranted given the encouraging results observed in a limited number of studies.

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
8.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
“AI et al.” The perils of overreliance on Artificial Intelligence by authors in scientific research A systematic review of eHealth and mHealth interventions for lymphedema patients Machine learning and transfer learning techniques for accurate brain tumor classification Internet of Things in healthcare: An adaptive ethical framework for IoT in digital health IoMT Tsukamoto Type-2 fuzzy expert system for tuberculosis and Alzheimer’s disease
×
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