考虑移动保健应用有效性试验中的不平等问题--对总体审查中的研究进行系统评估

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH International Journal for Equity in Health Pub Date : 2024-09-11 DOI:10.1186/s12939-024-02267-4
Nancy Abdelmalak, Jacob Burns, Laura Suhlrie, Michael Laxy, Anna-Janina Stephan
{"title":"考虑移动保健应用有效性试验中的不平等问题--对总体审查中的研究进行系统评估","authors":"Nancy Abdelmalak, Jacob Burns, Laura Suhlrie, Michael Laxy, Anna-Janina Stephan","doi":"10.1186/s12939-024-02267-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The growing use of mobile health applications (apps) for managing diabetes and hypertension entails an increased need to understand their effectiveness among different population groups. It is unclear if efficacy and effectiveness trials currently provide evidence of differential effectiveness, and if they do, a summary of such evidence is missing. Our study identified to what extent sociocultural and socioeconomic inequalities were considered in effectiveness trials of mobile health apps in diabetic and hypertensive patients and if these inequalities moderated app effectiveness. We built on our recent umbrella review that synthesized systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of health apps. Using standard SR methodologies, we identified and assessed all primary RCTs from these SRs that focused on diabetes and/or hypertension and reported on health-related outcomes and inequality-related characteristics across intervention arms. We used the PROGRESS-Plus framework to define inequality-related characteristics that affect health opportunities and outcomes. We used harvest plots to summarize the subgroups (stratified analyses or interaction terms) on moderating effects of PROGRESS-Plus. We assessed study quality using the Risk of Bias 2 tool. We included 72 published articles of 65 unique RCTs. Gender, age, and education were the most frequently described PROGRESS-Plus characteristics at baseline in more than half of the studies. Ethnicity and occupation followed in 21 and 15 RCTs, respectively. Seven trials investigated the moderating effect of age, gender or ethnicity on app effectiveness through subgroup analyses. Results were equivocal and covered a heterogenous set of outcomes. Results showed some concerns for a high risk of bias, mostly because participants could not be blinded to their intervention allocation. Besides frequently available gender, age, and education descriptives, other relevant sociocultural or socioeconomic characteristics were neither sufficiently reported nor analyzed. We encourage researchers to investigate how these characteristics moderate the effectiveness of health apps to better understand how effect heterogeneity for apps across different sociocultural or socioeconomic groups affects inequalities, to support more equitable management of non-communicable diseases in increasingly digitalized systems. https://osf.io/89dhy/ .","PeriodicalId":13745,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Equity in Health","volume":"27 4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Consideration of inequalities in effectiveness trials of mHealth applications – a systematic assessment of studies from an umbrella review\",\"authors\":\"Nancy Abdelmalak, Jacob Burns, Laura Suhlrie, Michael Laxy, Anna-Janina Stephan\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12939-024-02267-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The growing use of mobile health applications (apps) for managing diabetes and hypertension entails an increased need to understand their effectiveness among different population groups. It is unclear if efficacy and effectiveness trials currently provide evidence of differential effectiveness, and if they do, a summary of such evidence is missing. Our study identified to what extent sociocultural and socioeconomic inequalities were considered in effectiveness trials of mobile health apps in diabetic and hypertensive patients and if these inequalities moderated app effectiveness. We built on our recent umbrella review that synthesized systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of health apps. Using standard SR methodologies, we identified and assessed all primary RCTs from these SRs that focused on diabetes and/or hypertension and reported on health-related outcomes and inequality-related characteristics across intervention arms. We used the PROGRESS-Plus framework to define inequality-related characteristics that affect health opportunities and outcomes. We used harvest plots to summarize the subgroups (stratified analyses or interaction terms) on moderating effects of PROGRESS-Plus. We assessed study quality using the Risk of Bias 2 tool. We included 72 published articles of 65 unique RCTs. Gender, age, and education were the most frequently described PROGRESS-Plus characteristics at baseline in more than half of the studies. Ethnicity and occupation followed in 21 and 15 RCTs, respectively. Seven trials investigated the moderating effect of age, gender or ethnicity on app effectiveness through subgroup analyses. Results were equivocal and covered a heterogenous set of outcomes. Results showed some concerns for a high risk of bias, mostly because participants could not be blinded to their intervention allocation. Besides frequently available gender, age, and education descriptives, other relevant sociocultural or socioeconomic characteristics were neither sufficiently reported nor analyzed. We encourage researchers to investigate how these characteristics moderate the effectiveness of health apps to better understand how effect heterogeneity for apps across different sociocultural or socioeconomic groups affects inequalities, to support more equitable management of non-communicable diseases in increasingly digitalized systems. https://osf.io/89dhy/ .\",\"PeriodicalId\":13745,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal for Equity in Health\",\"volume\":\"27 4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal for Equity in Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-024-02267-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Equity in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-024-02267-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着管理糖尿病和高血压的移动医疗应用程序(Apps)的使用日益增多,人们越来越需要了解这些应用程序在不同人群中的有效性。目前尚不清楚疗效和有效性试验是否提供了不同有效性的证据,如果提供了,也缺少对这些证据的总结。我们的研究确定了针对糖尿病和高血压患者的移动医疗应用程序的有效性试验在多大程度上考虑了社会文化和社会经济的不平等,以及这些不平等是否会调节应用程序的有效性。最近,我们对有关健康应用程序有效性的随机对照试验(RCT)进行了系统性综述(SR),在此基础上,我们对这些综述进行了综合。利用标准的系统综述方法,我们确定并评估了这些系统综述中所有以糖尿病和/或高血压为研究对象、报告了健康相关结果和干预措施间不平等相关特征的主要 RCTs。我们使用 PROGRESS-Plus 框架来定义影响健康机会和结果的不平等相关特征。我们使用收获图来总结亚组(分层分析或交互项)对 PROGRESS-Plus 的调节作用。我们使用 Risk of Bias 2 工具评估了研究质量。我们共纳入了 72 篇已发表的文章,其中 65 篇为 RCT。在半数以上的研究中,性别、年龄和教育程度是最常描述的 PROGRESS-Plus 基线特征。其次是种族和职业,分别有 21 项和 15 项研究数据。七项试验通过亚组分析研究了年龄、性别或种族对应用程序有效性的调节作用。结果模棱两可,涵盖的结果也不尽相同。研究结果表明,存在较高的偏倚风险,这主要是因为无法对参与者的干预分配进行盲法处理。除了常见的性别、年龄和教育程度描述外,其他相关的社会文化或社会经济特征既没有得到充分报告,也没有得到充分分析。https://osf.io/89dhy/。
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
Consideration of inequalities in effectiveness trials of mHealth applications – a systematic assessment of studies from an umbrella review
The growing use of mobile health applications (apps) for managing diabetes and hypertension entails an increased need to understand their effectiveness among different population groups. It is unclear if efficacy and effectiveness trials currently provide evidence of differential effectiveness, and if they do, a summary of such evidence is missing. Our study identified to what extent sociocultural and socioeconomic inequalities were considered in effectiveness trials of mobile health apps in diabetic and hypertensive patients and if these inequalities moderated app effectiveness. We built on our recent umbrella review that synthesized systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of health apps. Using standard SR methodologies, we identified and assessed all primary RCTs from these SRs that focused on diabetes and/or hypertension and reported on health-related outcomes and inequality-related characteristics across intervention arms. We used the PROGRESS-Plus framework to define inequality-related characteristics that affect health opportunities and outcomes. We used harvest plots to summarize the subgroups (stratified analyses or interaction terms) on moderating effects of PROGRESS-Plus. We assessed study quality using the Risk of Bias 2 tool. We included 72 published articles of 65 unique RCTs. Gender, age, and education were the most frequently described PROGRESS-Plus characteristics at baseline in more than half of the studies. Ethnicity and occupation followed in 21 and 15 RCTs, respectively. Seven trials investigated the moderating effect of age, gender or ethnicity on app effectiveness through subgroup analyses. Results were equivocal and covered a heterogenous set of outcomes. Results showed some concerns for a high risk of bias, mostly because participants could not be blinded to their intervention allocation. Besides frequently available gender, age, and education descriptives, other relevant sociocultural or socioeconomic characteristics were neither sufficiently reported nor analyzed. We encourage researchers to investigate how these characteristics moderate the effectiveness of health apps to better understand how effect heterogeneity for apps across different sociocultural or socioeconomic groups affects inequalities, to support more equitable management of non-communicable diseases in increasingly digitalized systems. https://osf.io/89dhy/ .
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
7.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
162
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal for Equity in Health is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal presenting evidence relevant to the search for, and attainment of, equity in health across and within countries. International Journal for Equity in Health aims to improve the understanding of issues that influence the health of populations. This includes the discussion of political, policy-related, economic, social and health services-related influences, particularly with regard to systematic differences in distributions of one or more aspects of health in population groups defined demographically, geographically, or socially.
期刊最新文献
Does an innovative case-based payment scheme promote the hierarchical medical system? A tripartite evolutionary game analysis. Is the diagnosis and treatment of depression gender-biased? Evidence from a population-based aging cohort in Sweden. Equity of access to palliative care: a scoping review. Trends and inequalities in health system satisfaction: results from the latest nationally representative surveys in Qatar. Intersectional inequalities in mental health by education, income, gender, and age before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands: a longitudinal study.
×
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