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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Anne M. Finucane, Hannah O’Donnell, Jean Lugton, Tilly Gibson-Watt, Connie Swenson, Claudia Pagliari
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