Digital health interventions to improve recovery for intensive care unit survivors: A systematic review.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Nina Leggett, Yasmine Ali Abdelhamid, Adam M Deane, Kate Emery, Evelyn Hutcheon, Thomas C Rollinson, Annabel Preston, Sophie Witherspoon, Cindy Zhang, Mark Merolli, Kimberley J Haines
{"title":"Digital health interventions to improve recovery for intensive care unit survivors: A systematic review.","authors":"Nina Leggett, Yasmine Ali Abdelhamid, Adam M Deane, Kate Emery, Evelyn Hutcheon, Thomas C Rollinson, Annabel Preston, Sophie Witherspoon, Cindy Zhang, Mark Merolli, Kimberley J Haines","doi":"10.1016/j.aucc.2024.101134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Recovery models of care for intensive care unit (ICU) survivors are limited by availability, accessibility, and efficacy. Digital health interventions represent an alternative mode of service delivery. The primary aim of this systematic review was to describe implementation factors (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) for digital health interventions for ICU survivors. The secondary aim was to describe any effect on patient-reported health outcomes.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>A systematic search of Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excertpa Medica Database (EMBASE), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Cochrane Central Register of Systematic Reviews (CENTRAL) databases was undertaken in March 2023.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full texts against eligibility criteria. Studies of adult survivors with any post-ICU discharge care, delivered via a digital mode, were included. Studies were excluded if published before 1990 or not in English.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Quantitative data were extracted using predefined data fields. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Implementation factors were reported according to the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>A total of 6482 studies were screened. Ten studies, with 686 participants, were included. Implementation factors were reported in all studies. Acceptability (reported in six studies) was high, with high satisfaction and usability scores, defined a priori by investigators. Eight studies reported intervention adherence rates between 46% and 100%. Nine studies report final outcome measurement retention rates up to 12 months, between 52% and 100%. Five studies included the primary outcome as the difference in a patient-reported health outcome. Appraisal of efficacy and digital health literacy was limited due to substantial methodological variation and a lack of reporting in included studies. There was some risk of bias in 50% of studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Digital health interventions can be successfully implemented for critical care survivors and have varying intervention adherence and retention rate success. To broaden reach, future research should include cultural diversity and investigate digital health access, literacy, and cost-effectiveness. INTERNATIONAL PROSPECTIVE REGISTER OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS REGISTRATION: CRD42022348252.</p>","PeriodicalId":51239,"journal":{"name":"Australian Critical Care","volume":" ","pages":"101134"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2024.101134","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Recovery models of care for intensive care unit (ICU) survivors are limited by availability, accessibility, and efficacy. Digital health interventions represent an alternative mode of service delivery. The primary aim of this systematic review was to describe implementation factors (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) for digital health interventions for ICU survivors. The secondary aim was to describe any effect on patient-reported health outcomes.

Data sources: A systematic search of Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excertpa Medica Database (EMBASE), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Cochrane Central Register of Systematic Reviews (CENTRAL) databases was undertaken in March 2023.

Study selection: Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full texts against eligibility criteria. Studies of adult survivors with any post-ICU discharge care, delivered via a digital mode, were included. Studies were excluded if published before 1990 or not in English.

Data extraction: Quantitative data were extracted using predefined data fields. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Implementation factors were reported according to the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework.

Data synthesis: A total of 6482 studies were screened. Ten studies, with 686 participants, were included. Implementation factors were reported in all studies. Acceptability (reported in six studies) was high, with high satisfaction and usability scores, defined a priori by investigators. Eight studies reported intervention adherence rates between 46% and 100%. Nine studies report final outcome measurement retention rates up to 12 months, between 52% and 100%. Five studies included the primary outcome as the difference in a patient-reported health outcome. Appraisal of efficacy and digital health literacy was limited due to substantial methodological variation and a lack of reporting in included studies. There was some risk of bias in 50% of studies.

Conclusions: Digital health interventions can be successfully implemented for critical care survivors and have varying intervention adherence and retention rate success. To broaden reach, future research should include cultural diversity and investigate digital health access, literacy, and cost-effectiveness. INTERNATIONAL PROSPECTIVE REGISTER OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS REGISTRATION: CRD42022348252.

改善重症监护室幸存者康复的数字健康干预措施:系统综述。
目的:重症监护室(ICU)幸存者的康复护理模式受到可用性、可及性和有效性的限制。数字健康干预是提供服务的另一种模式。本系统性综述的主要目的是描述针对 ICU 幸存者的数字健康干预措施的实施因素(覆盖范围、有效性、采用、实施和维护)。次要目的是描述对患者报告的健康结果的影响:数据来源:2023 年 3 月,对医学文献分析和检索系统在线(MEDLINE)、Excertpa Medica 数据库(EMBASE)、护理和专职医疗文献累积索引(CINAHL)以及 Cochrane 系统性综述中央注册数据库(CENTRAL)进行了系统性检索:两名独立审稿人根据资格标准筛选了摘要和全文。研究对象包括通过数字模式提供任何重症监护室出院后护理服务的成年幸存者。1990年之前发表的研究或非英语的研究将被排除在外:使用预定义的数据字段提取定量数据。使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表和 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具 2.0 评估偏倚风险。根据 "到达、效果、采用、实施和维持 "框架报告了实施因素:共筛选出 6482 项研究。纳入了 10 项研究,共有 686 名参与者。所有研究都报告了实施因素。可接受性(六项研究报告)很高,满意度和可用性得分都很高,由调查人员事先确定。八项研究报告的干预坚持率在 46% 到 100% 之间。九项研究报告了长达 12 个月的最终结果测量保留率,在 52% 到 100% 之间。五项研究的主要结果是患者报告的健康结果的差异。对疗效和数字健康素养的评估受到了限制,原因是研究方法存在很大差异,且所纳入的研究缺乏报告。50%的研究存在一定的偏倚风险:重症监护幸存者可以成功实施数字健康干预,干预的坚持率和保留率也各不相同。为了扩大影响范围,未来的研究应包括文化多样性,并调查数字健康的可及性、识字率和成本效益。国际前瞻性系统综述注册:CRD42022348252。
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
Australian Critical Care
Australian Critical Care NURSING-NURSING
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
148
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australian Critical Care is the official journal of the Australian College of Critical Care Nurses (ACCCN). It is a bi-monthly peer-reviewed journal, providing clinically relevant research, reviews and articles of interest to the critical care community. Australian Critical Care publishes peer-reviewed scholarly papers that report research findings, research-based reviews, discussion papers and commentaries which are of interest to an international readership of critical care practitioners, educators, administrators and researchers. Interprofessional articles are welcomed.
×
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