Digital health interventions in palliative care: a systematic meta-review
Abstract Digital health interventions (DHIs) have the potential to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of palliative care but heterogeneity amongst existing systematic reviews presents a challenge for evidence synthesis. This meta-review applied a structured search of ten databases from 2006...
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Nature Publishing Group
2021-04-01
|
Series: | npj Digital Medicine |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-021-00430-7 |
id |
doaj-9ee79ce208eb4ca6a1c1974301fa9afc |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-9ee79ce208eb4ca6a1c1974301fa9afc2021-04-11T11:37:32ZengNature Publishing Groupnpj Digital Medicine2398-63522021-04-014111010.1038/s41746-021-00430-7Digital health interventions in palliative care: a systematic meta-reviewAnne M. Finucane0Hannah O’Donnell1Jean Lugton2Tilly Gibson-Watt3Connie Swenson4Claudia Pagliari5Clinical Psychology, School of Health in Social Science, University of EdinburghThe Usher Institute, University of EdinburghMarie Curie Hospice EdinburghEdinburgh Medical School, University of EdinburghMarie Curie Hospice EdinburghThe Usher Institute, University of EdinburghAbstract Digital health interventions (DHIs) have the potential to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of palliative care but heterogeneity amongst existing systematic reviews presents a challenge for evidence synthesis. This meta-review applied a structured search of ten databases from 2006 to 2020, revealing 21 relevant systematic reviews, encompassing 332 publications. Interventions delivered via videoconferencing (17%), electronic healthcare records (16%) and phone (13%) were most frequently described in studies within reviews. DHIs were typically used in palliative care for education (20%), symptom management (15%), decision-making (13%), information provision or management (13%) and communication (9%). Across all reviews, mostly positive impacts were reported on education, information sharing, decision-making, communication and costs. Impacts on quality of life and physical and psychological symptoms were inconclusive. Applying AMSTAR 2 criteria, most reviews were judged as low quality as they lacked a protocol or did not consider risk of bias, so findings need to be interpreted with caution.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-021-00430-7 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Anne M. Finucane Hannah O’Donnell Jean Lugton Tilly Gibson-Watt Connie Swenson Claudia Pagliari |
spellingShingle |
Anne M. Finucane Hannah O’Donnell Jean Lugton Tilly Gibson-Watt Connie Swenson Claudia Pagliari Digital health interventions in palliative care: a systematic meta-review npj Digital Medicine |
author_facet |
Anne M. Finucane Hannah O’Donnell Jean Lugton Tilly Gibson-Watt Connie Swenson Claudia Pagliari |
author_sort |
Anne M. Finucane |
title |
Digital health interventions in palliative care: a systematic meta-review |
title_short |
Digital health interventions in palliative care: a systematic meta-review |
title_full |
Digital health interventions in palliative care: a systematic meta-review |
title_fullStr |
Digital health interventions in palliative care: a systematic meta-review |
title_full_unstemmed |
Digital health interventions in palliative care: a systematic meta-review |
title_sort |
digital health interventions in palliative care: a systematic meta-review |
publisher |
Nature Publishing Group |
series |
npj Digital Medicine |
issn |
2398-6352 |
publishDate |
2021-04-01 |
description |
Abstract Digital health interventions (DHIs) have the potential to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of palliative care but heterogeneity amongst existing systematic reviews presents a challenge for evidence synthesis. This meta-review applied a structured search of ten databases from 2006 to 2020, revealing 21 relevant systematic reviews, encompassing 332 publications. Interventions delivered via videoconferencing (17%), electronic healthcare records (16%) and phone (13%) were most frequently described in studies within reviews. DHIs were typically used in palliative care for education (20%), symptom management (15%), decision-making (13%), information provision or management (13%) and communication (9%). Across all reviews, mostly positive impacts were reported on education, information sharing, decision-making, communication and costs. Impacts on quality of life and physical and psychological symptoms were inconclusive. Applying AMSTAR 2 criteria, most reviews were judged as low quality as they lacked a protocol or did not consider risk of bias, so findings need to be interpreted with caution. |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-021-00430-7 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT annemfinucane digitalhealthinterventionsinpalliativecareasystematicmetareview AT hannahodonnell digitalhealthinterventionsinpalliativecareasystematicmetareview AT jeanlugton digitalhealthinterventionsinpalliativecareasystematicmetareview AT tillygibsonwatt digitalhealthinterventionsinpalliativecareasystematicmetareview AT connieswenson digitalhealthinterventionsinpalliativecareasystematicmetareview AT claudiapagliari digitalhealthinterventionsinpalliativecareasystematicmetareview |
_version_ |
1721530934474309632 |