远程医疗指导下提供者与提供者之间的交流,以改善农村健康:系统综述。

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2022-12-25 DOI:10.1177/1357633X221139892
Annette M Totten, Dana M Womack, Jessica C Griffin, Marian S McDonagh, Cynthia Davis-O'Reilly, Ian Blazina, Sara Grusing, Nancy Elder
{"title":"远程医疗指导下提供者与提供者之间的交流,以改善农村健康:系统综述。","authors":"Annette M Totten, Dana M Womack, Jessica C Griffin, Marian S McDonagh, Cynthia Davis-O'Reilly, Ian Blazina, Sara Grusing, Nancy Elder","doi":"10.1177/1357633X221139892","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Telehealth may address healthcare disparities for rural populations. This systematic review assesses the use, effectiveness, and implementation of telehealth-supported provider-to-provider collaboration to improve rural healthcare.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Ovid MEDLINE®, CINAHL®, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 1 January 2010 to 12 October 2021 for trials and observational studies of rural provider-to-provider telehealth. Abstracts and full text were dual-reviewed. We assessed the risk of bias for individual studies and strength of evidence for studies with similar outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven studies of rural uptake of provider-to-provider telehealth documented increases over time but variability across geographic regions. In 97 effectiveness studies, outcomes were similar with rural provider-to-provider telehealth versus without for inpatient consultations, neonatal care, outpatient depression and diabetes, and emergency care. Better or similar results were reported for changes in rural clinician behavior, knowledge, confidence, and self-efficacy. Evidence was insufficient for other clinical uses and outcomes. Sixty-seven (67) evaluation and qualitative studies identified barriers and facilitators to implementing rural provider-to-provider telehealth. Success was linked to well-functioning technology, sufficient resources, and adequate payment. Barriers included lack of understanding of rural context and resources. Methodologic weaknesses of studies included less rigorous study designs and small samples.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Rural provider-to-provider telehealth produces similar or better results versus care without telehealth. Barriers to rural provider-to-provider telehealth implementation are common to practice change but include some specific to rural adaptation and adoption. Evidence gaps are partially due to studies that do not address differences in the groups compared or do not include sufficient sample sizes.</p>","PeriodicalId":50024,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare","volume":" ","pages":"1209-1229"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11389081/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Telehealth-guided provider-to-provider communication to improve rural health: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Annette M Totten, Dana M Womack, Jessica C Griffin, Marian S McDonagh, Cynthia Davis-O'Reilly, Ian Blazina, Sara Grusing, Nancy Elder\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1357633X221139892\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Telehealth may address healthcare disparities for rural populations. This systematic review assesses the use, effectiveness, and implementation of telehealth-supported provider-to-provider collaboration to improve rural healthcare.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Ovid MEDLINE®, CINAHL®, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 1 January 2010 to 12 October 2021 for trials and observational studies of rural provider-to-provider telehealth. Abstracts and full text were dual-reviewed. We assessed the risk of bias for individual studies and strength of evidence for studies with similar outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven studies of rural uptake of provider-to-provider telehealth documented increases over time but variability across geographic regions. In 97 effectiveness studies, outcomes were similar with rural provider-to-provider telehealth versus without for inpatient consultations, neonatal care, outpatient depression and diabetes, and emergency care. Better or similar results were reported for changes in rural clinician behavior, knowledge, confidence, and self-efficacy. Evidence was insufficient for other clinical uses and outcomes. Sixty-seven (67) evaluation and qualitative studies identified barriers and facilitators to implementing rural provider-to-provider telehealth. Success was linked to well-functioning technology, sufficient resources, and adequate payment. Barriers included lack of understanding of rural context and resources. Methodologic weaknesses of studies included less rigorous study designs and small samples.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Rural provider-to-provider telehealth produces similar or better results versus care without telehealth. Barriers to rural provider-to-provider telehealth implementation are common to practice change but include some specific to rural adaptation and adoption. Evidence gaps are partially due to studies that do not address differences in the groups compared or do not include sufficient sample sizes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50024,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1209-1229\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11389081/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X221139892\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/12/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X221139892","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

介绍:远程医疗可以解决农村人口的医疗差距问题。本系统综述评估了远程医疗支持的医疗服务提供者间合作的使用、有效性和实施情况,以改善农村医疗保健:我们检索了 2010 年 1 月 1 日至 2021 年 10 月 12 日期间 Ovid MEDLINE®、CINAHL®、EMBASE 和 Cochrane CENTRAL 中关于农村医疗机构间远程医疗的试验和观察性研究。摘要和全文均经过双重审核。我们评估了单项研究的偏倚风险以及具有相似结果的研究的证据强度:七项关于农村地区医疗机构对医疗机构远程医疗的研究表明,随着时间的推移,医疗机构对医疗机构远程医疗的使用率有所提高,但在不同的地理区域存在差异。在 97 项有效性研究中,在住院会诊、新生儿护理、抑郁症和糖尿病门诊以及急诊护理方面,农村医疗服务提供者对医疗服务提供者远程医疗与未采用远程医疗的结果相似。据报道,在农村临床医生的行为、知识、信心和自我效能的变化方面,结果更好或相似。其他临床用途和结果方面的证据不足。67 项评估和定性研究确定了实施农村医疗服务提供者间远程医疗的障碍和促进因素。成功与否与运作良好的技术、充足的资源和适当的支付有关。障碍包括缺乏对农村环境和资源的了解。研究方法上的不足包括研究设计不够严谨和样本较少:讨论:农村医疗服务提供者之间的远程医疗与没有远程医疗的医疗服务相比,效果相似或更好。农村医疗服务提供者对医疗服务提供者远程医疗实施的障碍是实践变革的共同障碍,但也包括一些农村适应和采用的特殊障碍。证据差距的部分原因是一些研究没有解决所比较群体的差异,或没有包含足够的样本量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Telehealth-guided provider-to-provider communication to improve rural health: A systematic review.

Introduction: Telehealth may address healthcare disparities for rural populations. This systematic review assesses the use, effectiveness, and implementation of telehealth-supported provider-to-provider collaboration to improve rural healthcare.

Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE®, CINAHL®, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 1 January 2010 to 12 October 2021 for trials and observational studies of rural provider-to-provider telehealth. Abstracts and full text were dual-reviewed. We assessed the risk of bias for individual studies and strength of evidence for studies with similar outcomes.

Results: Seven studies of rural uptake of provider-to-provider telehealth documented increases over time but variability across geographic regions. In 97 effectiveness studies, outcomes were similar with rural provider-to-provider telehealth versus without for inpatient consultations, neonatal care, outpatient depression and diabetes, and emergency care. Better or similar results were reported for changes in rural clinician behavior, knowledge, confidence, and self-efficacy. Evidence was insufficient for other clinical uses and outcomes. Sixty-seven (67) evaluation and qualitative studies identified barriers and facilitators to implementing rural provider-to-provider telehealth. Success was linked to well-functioning technology, sufficient resources, and adequate payment. Barriers included lack of understanding of rural context and resources. Methodologic weaknesses of studies included less rigorous study designs and small samples.

Discussion: Rural provider-to-provider telehealth produces similar or better results versus care without telehealth. Barriers to rural provider-to-provider telehealth implementation are common to practice change but include some specific to rural adaptation and adoption. Evidence gaps are partially due to studies that do not address differences in the groups compared or do not include sufficient sample sizes.

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
14.10
自引率
10.60%
发文量
174
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare provides excellent peer reviewed coverage of developments in telemedicine and e-health and is now widely recognised as the leading journal in its field. Contributions from around the world provide a unique perspective on how different countries and health systems are using new technology in health care. Sections within the journal include technology updates, editorials, original articles, research tutorials, educational material, review articles and reports from various telemedicine organisations. A subscription to this journal will help you to stay up-to-date in this fast moving and growing area of medicine.
×
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