eHealth in Geriatric Rehabilitation: Systematic Review of Effectiveness, Feasibility, and Usability.
digital health
eHealth
effectiveness
feasibility
geriatric rehabilitation
mHealth
systematic review
usability
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 08 2021
19 08 2021
Historique:
received:
31
08
2020
accepted:
16
05
2021
revised:
11
02
2021
entrez:
23
8
2021
pubmed:
24
8
2021
medline:
27
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
eHealth has the potential to improve outcomes such as physical activity or balance in older adults receiving geriatric rehabilitation. However, several challenges such as scarce evidence on effectiveness, feasibility, and usability hinder the successful implementation of eHealth in geriatric rehabilitation. The aim of this systematic review was to assess evidence on the effectiveness, feasibility, and usability of eHealth interventions in older adults in geriatric rehabilitation. We searched 7 databases for randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized studies, quantitative descriptive studies, qualitative research, and mixed methods studies that applied eHealth interventions during geriatric rehabilitation. Included studies investigated a combination of effectiveness, usability, and feasibility of eHealth in older patients who received geriatric rehabilitation, with a mean age of ≥70 years. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and a narrative synthesis was conducted using a harvest plot. In total, 40 studies were selected, with clinical heterogeneity across studies. Of 40 studies, 15 studies (38%) found eHealth was at least as effective as non-eHealth interventions (56% of the 27 studies with a control group), 11 studies (41%) found eHealth interventions were more effective than non-eHealth interventions, and 1 study (4%) reported beneficial outcomes in favor of the non-eHealth interventions. Of 17 studies, 16 (94%) concluded that eHealth was feasible. However, high exclusion rates were reported in 7 studies of 40 (18%). Of 40 studies, 4 (10%) included outcomes related to usability and indicated that there were certain aging-related barriers to cognitive ability, physical ability, or perception, which led to difficulties in using eHealth. eHealth can potentially improve rehabilitation outcomes for older patients receiving geriatric rehabilitation. Simple eHealth interventions were more likely to be feasible for older patients receiving geriatric rehabilitation, especially, in combination with another non-eHealth intervention. However, a lack of evidence on usability might hamper the implementation of eHealth. eHealth applications in geriatric rehabilitation show promise, but more research is required, including research with a focus on usability and participation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
eHealth has the potential to improve outcomes such as physical activity or balance in older adults receiving geriatric rehabilitation. However, several challenges such as scarce evidence on effectiveness, feasibility, and usability hinder the successful implementation of eHealth in geriatric rehabilitation.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to assess evidence on the effectiveness, feasibility, and usability of eHealth interventions in older adults in geriatric rehabilitation.
METHODS
We searched 7 databases for randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized studies, quantitative descriptive studies, qualitative research, and mixed methods studies that applied eHealth interventions during geriatric rehabilitation. Included studies investigated a combination of effectiveness, usability, and feasibility of eHealth in older patients who received geriatric rehabilitation, with a mean age of ≥70 years. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and a narrative synthesis was conducted using a harvest plot.
RESULTS
In total, 40 studies were selected, with clinical heterogeneity across studies. Of 40 studies, 15 studies (38%) found eHealth was at least as effective as non-eHealth interventions (56% of the 27 studies with a control group), 11 studies (41%) found eHealth interventions were more effective than non-eHealth interventions, and 1 study (4%) reported beneficial outcomes in favor of the non-eHealth interventions. Of 17 studies, 16 (94%) concluded that eHealth was feasible. However, high exclusion rates were reported in 7 studies of 40 (18%). Of 40 studies, 4 (10%) included outcomes related to usability and indicated that there were certain aging-related barriers to cognitive ability, physical ability, or perception, which led to difficulties in using eHealth.
CONCLUSIONS
eHealth can potentially improve rehabilitation outcomes for older patients receiving geriatric rehabilitation. Simple eHealth interventions were more likely to be feasible for older patients receiving geriatric rehabilitation, especially, in combination with another non-eHealth intervention. However, a lack of evidence on usability might hamper the implementation of eHealth. eHealth applications in geriatric rehabilitation show promise, but more research is required, including research with a focus on usability and participation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34420918
pii: v23i8e24015
doi: 10.2196/24015
pmc: PMC8414304
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e24015Informations de copyright
©Jules J M Kraaijkamp, Eléonore F van Dam van Isselt, Anke Persoon, Anke Versluis, Niels H Chavannes, Wilco P Achterberg. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 19.08.2021.
Références
J Telemed Telecare. 2018 Apr;24(3):179-184
pubmed: 28024441
Int J Rehabil Res. 2016 Mar;39(1):29-35
pubmed: 26512928
J Med Syst. 2015 Feb;39(2):1
pubmed: 25600193
Inform Health Soc Care. 2014 Sep-Dec;39(3-4):262-71
pubmed: 25148561
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Jun 09;4(2):e29
pubmed: 27282195
Am J Prev Med. 2009 May;36(5):452-7
pubmed: 19362699
Int J Med Inform. 2019 Jun;126:95-104
pubmed: 31029270
J Rehabil Med. 2013 Apr;45(4):392-6
pubmed: 23474735
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017 May 1;18(5):383-387
pubmed: 27939318
Clin Rehabil. 2018 Feb;32(2):191-200
pubmed: 28719977
Clin Rehabil. 2014 Jul;28(7):637-47
pubmed: 24452706
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2019 Mar;20(3):340-346
pubmed: 30366759
J Physiother. 2016 Jan;62(1):20-8
pubmed: 26701163
Int J Med Inform. 2014 Jul;83(7):e1-11
pubmed: 23910896
BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 27;7(9):e017909
pubmed: 28963313
J Telemed Telecare. 2007;13(6):303-9
pubmed: 17785027
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264-9, W64
pubmed: 19622511
J Telemed Telecare. 2022 May;28(4):239-247
pubmed: 32594832
Clin Rehabil. 2019 Dec;33(12):1940-1948
pubmed: 31409126
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2010 Jun 28;7:30
pubmed: 20584307
Clin Rehabil. 2017 Mar;31(3):351-360
pubmed: 27056250
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2017 Dec;53(6):870-882
pubmed: 28084064
Implement Sci. 2016 Oct 26;11(1):146
pubmed: 27782832
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2016 Apr;23(2):106-15
pubmed: 27078116
Prev Med. 2018 Mar;108:93-110
pubmed: 29289643
J Sport Health Sci. 2017 Mar;6(1):33-43
pubmed: 30356538
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Nov 23;20(11):e10971
pubmed: 30470678
Ann Behav Med. 2017 Feb;51(1):79-93
pubmed: 27565168
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(3):251-62
pubmed: 26336875
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017 Nov 1;18(11):991.e1-991.e4
pubmed: 28843523
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Sep 03;9:CD006876
pubmed: 30175845
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Feb 25;8:8
pubmed: 18298827
Clin Rehabil. 2019 Aug;33(8):1391-1403
pubmed: 30845829
J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2020 Jan;24(1):194-198
pubmed: 31987544
Int J Med Inform. 2019 Aug;128:24-31
pubmed: 31160008
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2006 Sep;1(4):209-16
pubmed: 19260168
J Orthop Surg Res. 2018 Jul 3;13(1):163
pubmed: 29970139
Int J Med Inform. 2014 Jun;83(6):416-26
pubmed: 24798946
OTJR (Thorofare N J). 2015 Jul;35(3):169-77
pubmed: 26594739
JMIR Ment Health. 2016 Feb 09;3(1):e9
pubmed: 26860537
Int J Med Inform. 2016 Jan;85(1):1-16
pubmed: 26559887
Clin Rehabil. 2009 Feb;23(2):106-16
pubmed: 19164398
JMIR Form Res. 2020 Sep 14;4(9):e18169
pubmed: 32924953
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001 Sep-Oct;8(5):468-72
pubmed: 11522767
BMJ. 2010 Apr 20;340:c1718
pubmed: 20406866
Exp Gerontol. 2018 Oct 2;112:9-19
pubmed: 30103025
JAMA. 2011 Oct 26;306(16):1782-93
pubmed: 22028354
Epidemiol Rev. 2013;35:75-83
pubmed: 23372025
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Aug 12;22(8):e17774
pubmed: 32784173
Assist Technol. 2017 Winter;29(4):197-201
pubmed: 27689789
J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2018 Jan/Mar;41(1):49-61
pubmed: 27362526
Eur Geriatr Med. 2020 Apr;11(2):233-238
pubmed: 32297191
Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(21):1802-8
pubmed: 22409245
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007 May;55(5):780-91
pubmed: 17493201
BMC Geriatr. 2017 Mar 23;17(1):77
pubmed: 28330455
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2012;7(1):55-62
pubmed: 21446826
Heart Lung. 2009 Nov-Dec;38(6):459-68
pubmed: 19944870
Appl Clin Inform. 2017 May 10;8(2):470-490
pubmed: 28487932
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2004;1(3):176-84
pubmed: 17163895
Age Ageing. 2019 Sep 1;48(5):650-657
pubmed: 31204776
Eur J Gen Pract. 2019 Oct;25(4):179-189
pubmed: 31597502
Eur Geriatr Med. 2019 Dec;10(6):977-987
pubmed: 34652774
J Nutr Health Aging. 2011 May;15(5):382-6
pubmed: 21528165
Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(13):1186-92
pubmed: 25212736
PLoS One. 2016 Aug 26;11(8):e0160906
pubmed: 27564857
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2015 Aug;22(4):306-16
pubmed: 26258456
Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2012 Oct;12(4):714-21
pubmed: 22469232
Inform Health Soc Care. 2020 Sep;45(3):273-281
pubmed: 31690152
JMIR Serious Games. 2017 Oct 12;5(4):e19
pubmed: 29025696
Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2011 Dec;44(6):387-92
pubmed: 22159833
Int J Med Inform. 2018 Jun;114:66-75
pubmed: 29673606
J Rehabil Med. 2011 Mar;43(4):364-6
pubmed: 21305228