Systematic review of mobile health applications in transplant patients.

Florian Laval, Camille Boissière, Elouan Demay, Cécile Vigneau, Léonard Golbin, Roxane Lhermitte, Brendan Le Daré, Astrid Bacle
{"title":"Systematic review of mobile health applications in transplant patients.","authors":"Florian Laval, Camille Boissière, Elouan Demay, Cécile Vigneau, Léonard Golbin, Roxane Lhermitte, Brendan Le Daré, Astrid Bacle","doi":"10.1684/ndt.2024.95","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Poor medication management can lead to adverse outcomes for transplant patients, including acute rejection and graft loss. In recent years, mobile applications have been proposed as innovative tools to improve patient treatment management.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This review aimed to systematically evaluate the available research evidence on the relationship between mobile applications and treatment management in transplant patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The following databases were systematically searched for relevant publications on April 8, 2022, using the PRISMA method: PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the included studies. Observational or interventional studies focusing on the use of mobile applications in adult solid organ transplant patients were included for analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 28 articles met the inclusion criteria. The overall methodological quality of the evidence was assessed as low. Most studies were monocentric (n = 23, 82%). The majority of follow-ups focused on kidney transplants (n = 12, 42.9%) with small sample sizes (54%, n < 99), including participants < 60 years old (n = 26, 93%) with follow-up ≤ 6 months (61%). Medication adherence rates showed significant improvements in seven out of 13 trials compared to standard care or placebo. Several features were reported to be most effective in improving patient treatment management, such as self-registration and monitoring, medication reminders based on alerts, and caregiver monitoring to check patients' health indicators or medication adherence.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Mobile applications tended to improve medication management in transplant patients compared to standard care. However, due to the heterogeneity of the objectives of the analyzed studies, which do not allow for meta-analysis, further high-level evidence studies evaluating the effects of mobile applications in this area are needed to support effective interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":94153,"journal":{"name":"Nephrologie & therapeutique","volume":"20 6","pages":"589-601"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nephrologie & therapeutique","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1684/ndt.2024.95","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

Context: Poor medication management can lead to adverse outcomes for transplant patients, including acute rejection and graft loss. In recent years, mobile applications have been proposed as innovative tools to improve patient treatment management.

Objective: This review aimed to systematically evaluate the available research evidence on the relationship between mobile applications and treatment management in transplant patients.

Methods: The following databases were systematically searched for relevant publications on April 8, 2022, using the PRISMA method: PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the included studies. Observational or interventional studies focusing on the use of mobile applications in adult solid organ transplant patients were included for analysis.

Results: A total of 28 articles met the inclusion criteria. The overall methodological quality of the evidence was assessed as low. Most studies were monocentric (n = 23, 82%). The majority of follow-ups focused on kidney transplants (n = 12, 42.9%) with small sample sizes (54%, n < 99), including participants < 60 years old (n = 26, 93%) with follow-up ≤ 6 months (61%). Medication adherence rates showed significant improvements in seven out of 13 trials compared to standard care or placebo. Several features were reported to be most effective in improving patient treatment management, such as self-registration and monitoring, medication reminders based on alerts, and caregiver monitoring to check patients' health indicators or medication adherence.

Conclusion: Mobile applications tended to improve medication management in transplant patients compared to standard care. However, due to the heterogeneity of the objectives of the analyzed studies, which do not allow for meta-analysis, further high-level evidence studies evaluating the effects of mobile applications in this area are needed to support effective interventions.

移植患者移动医疗应用系统综述。
背景:药物管理不善可导致移植患者出现不良后果,包括急性排斥反应和移植物丢失。近年来,移动应用被认为是改善患者治疗管理的创新工具:本综述旨在系统评估有关移动应用与移植患者治疗管理之间关系的现有研究证据:采用 PRISMA 方法,系统检索了以下数据库中 2022 年 4 月 8 日的相关出版物:PubMed、Embase 和 Google Scholar。使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具对纳入的研究进行评估。结果显示,共有28篇文章符合纳入条件:共有 28 篇文章符合纳入标准。证据的总体方法学质量被评定为低。大多数研究都是单中心研究(n = 23,82%)。大多数随访研究侧重于肾移植(n = 12,42.9%),样本量较小(54%,n < 99),包括年龄小于60岁的参与者(n = 26,93%),随访时间≤6个月(61%)。与标准护理或安慰剂相比,13 项试验中有 7 项的用药依从率有明显提高。据报道,有几项功能对改善患者的治疗管理最为有效,如自我登记和监控、基于警报的用药提醒、护理人员监控检查患者的健康指标或用药依从性等:结论:与标准护理相比,移动应用往往能改善移植患者的用药管理。然而,由于所分析研究的目标存在异质性,无法进行荟萃分析,因此需要进一步开展高水平的实证研究,评估移动应用在这一领域的效果,以支持有效的干预措施。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信