Implementation of Web-Based Psychosocial Interventions for Adults With Acquired Brain Injury and Their Caregivers: Systematic Review.

acquired brain injury brain injury caregivers complexity delivery of health care digital health implementation science internet interventions mobile phone psychosocial psychosocial interventions

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:
26 07 2022
Historique:
received: 19 03 2022
accepted: 15 06 2022
revised: 16 05 2022
entrez: 26 7 2022
pubmed: 27 7 2022
medline: 29 7 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

More than 135 million people worldwide live with acquired brain injury (ABI) and its many psychosocial sequelae. This growing global burden necessitates scalable rehabilitation services. Despite demonstrated potential to increase the accessibility and scalability of psychosocial supports, digital health interventions are challenging to implement and sustain. The Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework can offer developers and researchers a comprehensive overview of considerations to implement, scale, and sustain digital health interventions. This systematic review identified published, peer-reviewed primary evidence of implementation outcomes, strategies, and factors for web-based psychosocial interventions targeting either adults with ABI or their formal or informal caregivers; evaluated and summarized this evidence; synthesized qualitative and quantitative implementation data according to the NASSS framework; and provided recommendations for future implementation. Results were compared with 3 hypotheses which state that complexity (dynamic, unpredictable, and poorly characterized factors) in most or all NASSS domains increases likelihood of implementation failure; success is achievable, but difficult with many complicated domains (containing multiple interacting factors); and simplicity (straightforward, predictable, and few factors) in most or all domains increases the likelihood of success. From a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, speechBITE, and neuroBITE, we reviewed primary implementation evidence from January 2008 to June 2020. For web-based psychosocial interventions delivered via standard desktop computer, mobile phone, tablet, television, and virtual reality devices to adults with ABI or their formal or informal caregivers, we extracted intervention characteristics, stakeholder involvement, implementation scope and outcomes, study design and quality, and implementation data. Implementation data were both narratively synthesized and descriptively quantified across all 7 domains (condition, technology, value proposition, adopters, organization, wider system, and their interaction over time) and all subdomains of the NASSS framework. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the 2018 Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We identified 60 peer-reviewed studies from 12 countries, including 5723 adults with ABI, 1920 carers, and 50 health care staff. The findings aligned with all 3 hypotheses. Although studies were of low methodological quality and insufficient number to statistically test relationships, the results appeared consistent with recommendations to reduce complexity as much as possible to facilitate implementation. Although studies excluded individuals with a range of comorbidities and sociocultural challenges, such simplification of NASSS domain 1 may have been necessary to advance intervention value propositions (domain 3). However, to create equitable digital health solutions that can be successfully implemented in real-world settings, it is recommended that developers involve people with ABI, their close others, and health care staff in addressing complexities in domains 2 to 7 from the earliest intervention design stages. PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020186387; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020186387. RR2-10.1177/20552076211035988.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
More than 135 million people worldwide live with acquired brain injury (ABI) and its many psychosocial sequelae. This growing global burden necessitates scalable rehabilitation services. Despite demonstrated potential to increase the accessibility and scalability of psychosocial supports, digital health interventions are challenging to implement and sustain. The Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework can offer developers and researchers a comprehensive overview of considerations to implement, scale, and sustain digital health interventions.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review identified published, peer-reviewed primary evidence of implementation outcomes, strategies, and factors for web-based psychosocial interventions targeting either adults with ABI or their formal or informal caregivers; evaluated and summarized this evidence; synthesized qualitative and quantitative implementation data according to the NASSS framework; and provided recommendations for future implementation. Results were compared with 3 hypotheses which state that complexity (dynamic, unpredictable, and poorly characterized factors) in most or all NASSS domains increases likelihood of implementation failure; success is achievable, but difficult with many complicated domains (containing multiple interacting factors); and simplicity (straightforward, predictable, and few factors) in most or all domains increases the likelihood of success.
METHODS
From a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, speechBITE, and neuroBITE, we reviewed primary implementation evidence from January 2008 to June 2020. For web-based psychosocial interventions delivered via standard desktop computer, mobile phone, tablet, television, and virtual reality devices to adults with ABI or their formal or informal caregivers, we extracted intervention characteristics, stakeholder involvement, implementation scope and outcomes, study design and quality, and implementation data. Implementation data were both narratively synthesized and descriptively quantified across all 7 domains (condition, technology, value proposition, adopters, organization, wider system, and their interaction over time) and all subdomains of the NASSS framework. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the 2018 Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.
RESULTS
We identified 60 peer-reviewed studies from 12 countries, including 5723 adults with ABI, 1920 carers, and 50 health care staff. The findings aligned with all 3 hypotheses.
CONCLUSIONS
Although studies were of low methodological quality and insufficient number to statistically test relationships, the results appeared consistent with recommendations to reduce complexity as much as possible to facilitate implementation. Although studies excluded individuals with a range of comorbidities and sociocultural challenges, such simplification of NASSS domain 1 may have been necessary to advance intervention value propositions (domain 3). However, to create equitable digital health solutions that can be successfully implemented in real-world settings, it is recommended that developers involve people with ABI, their close others, and health care staff in addressing complexities in domains 2 to 7 from the earliest intervention design stages.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020186387; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020186387.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)
RR2-10.1177/20552076211035988.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35881432
pii: v24i7e38100
doi: 10.2196/38100
pmc: PMC9328122
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Review Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e38100

Informations de copyright

©Melissa Miao, Rachael Rietdijk, Melissa Brunner, Deborah Debono, Leanne Togher, Emma Power. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 26.07.2022.

Références

J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013 Jan;18(1):40-3
pubmed: 23393041
Implement Sci. 2016 Oct 26;11(1):146
pubmed: 27782832
Brain Inj. 2016;30(7):883-90
pubmed: 27029816
Lancet Public Health. 2020 Jan;5(1):e4-e5
pubmed: 31806488
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jul;111:49-59.e1
pubmed: 30905698
Med J Aust. 2004 Mar 15;180(S6):S48-9
pubmed: 15012579
Lancet Digit Health. 2020 Nov;2(11):e582-e593
pubmed: 33103097
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2018 May - Jun;52:58-63
pubmed: 29684713
Rehabil Nurs. 2020 May/Jun;45(3):166-177
pubmed: 30418319
Psychiatry Res. 2020 Jan;283:112630
pubmed: 31722790
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Jul 20;23(7):e26492
pubmed: 34061758
Brain Inj. 2019;33(1):94-104
pubmed: 30325220
Lancet. 2021 Dec 19;396(10267):2006-2017
pubmed: 33275908
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Trials. 2020 Feb 26;21(1):228
pubmed: 32102686
BMJ. 2021 Jan 18;372:m3721
pubmed: 33461967
Int J Behav Med. 2017 Oct;24(5):659-664
pubmed: 28405917
Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2020 Jul;30(6):1092-1114
pubmed: 30569816
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Dec 9;23(12):e31746
pubmed: 34709179
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2016 Jul-Aug;31(4):E12-20
pubmed: 26291634
Qual Health Res. 2021 Jan;31(2):338-348
pubmed: 33155510
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Sep 27;21(9):e14255
pubmed: 31573934
JMIR Res Protoc. 2017 Jun 05;6(6):e108
pubmed: 28583904
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2016 Sep-Oct;31(5):E41-9
pubmed: 26580691
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 25;14(1):e0210725
pubmed: 30682076
Brain Behav. 2018 Aug;8(8):e01055
pubmed: 30022609
J Neurosci Nurs. 2013 Oct;45(5):254-61
pubmed: 24025464
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020 Nov;15(8):908-916
pubmed: 31216917
JMIR Res Protoc. 2022 Jan 10;11(1):e35080
pubmed: 35006082
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2016 Jun 1;59(3):511-20
pubmed: 27124205
Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2020 Jun;30(5):829-852
pubmed: 30058468
Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2014;24(5):784-803
pubmed: 24810148
Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2016 Aug;26(4):584-609
pubmed: 26018197
Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2021 Apr;31(3):392-413
pubmed: 31778091
J Telemed Telecare. 2019 Jun;25(5):276-285
pubmed: 29703127
Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl. 2020 Oct 30;2(4):100089
pubmed: 33543112
Internet Interv. 2018 Apr 06;12:181-188
pubmed: 30135782
Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2016 Nov 1;25(4):642-653
pubmed: 27784033
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020 Jul 20;:1-9
pubmed: 32686628
J Med Internet Res. 2018 May 01;20(5):e10235
pubmed: 29716883
Int J Telerehabil. 2015 Jan 29;6(2):3-20
pubmed: 25945225
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2020 Feb 26;63(2):615-632
pubmed: 32078409
Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2020 Apr;30(3):503-522
pubmed: 29886809
PLoS Med. 2021 Mar 29;18(3):e1003583
pubmed: 33780438
Med Care. 2012 Mar;50(3):217-26
pubmed: 22310560
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2017 Sep/Oct;32(5):354-365
pubmed: 28891909
Front Hum Neurosci. 2016 Dec 20;10:640
pubmed: 28066211
Work. 2017 Sep 14;58(1):17-21
pubmed: 28922179
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2013 Sep-Oct;28(5):341-8
pubmed: 22688211
Internet Interv. 2019 Jul 24;18:100260
pubmed: 31890613
Lancet Psychiatry. 2019 Mar;6(3):257-266
pubmed: 30522979
Front Neurol. 2019 Dec 06;10:1247
pubmed: 31866924
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021 Feb 15;28(2):284-293
pubmed: 33043359
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2009 Jul-Aug;24(4):248-61
pubmed: 19625864
JMIR Aging. 2021 Oct 8;4(4):e30841
pubmed: 34623314
Internet Interv. 2018 Jul 07;13:51-59
pubmed: 30206519
Digit Health. 2021 Sep 06;7:20552076211035988
pubmed: 34567610
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019 Jul 30;263:193-204
pubmed: 31411163
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011 Mar;38(2):65-76
pubmed: 20957426
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2017 Jul;47:48-60
pubmed: 28807138
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Feb 7;22(2):e16286
pubmed: 32044752
Brain Inj. 2010;24(5):762-72
pubmed: 20370383
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2018 Jul;25(5):359-365
pubmed: 29663857
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2015 Jan;19(1):124-31
pubmed: 25204001
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Nov 01;19(11):e367
pubmed: 29092808
JMIR Res Protoc. 2021 Dec 9;10(12):e31995
pubmed: 34889770
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Jan 26;23(1):e23775
pubmed: 33434141
Disabil Rehabil. 2017 Jul;39(14):1380-1390
pubmed: 27414703
Clin Rehabil. 2016 Apr;30(4):359-73
pubmed: 25911523
Brain Inj. 2013;27(5):548-64
pubmed: 23472964
Health Expect. 2019 Jun;22(3):284-297
pubmed: 30604580
Clin Transl Sci. 2020 Jul;13(4):675-684
pubmed: 32058639
J Telemed Telecare. 2013 Apr;19(3):153-159
pubmed: 23625913
J Telemed Telecare. 2022 Feb;28(2):122-134
pubmed: 32460583
Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2019 Feb;21(1):23-36
pubmed: 28868932
Lancet Neurol. 2019 May;18(5):459-480
pubmed: 30879893

Auteurs

Melissa Miao (M)

University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Rachael Rietdijk (R)

University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Melissa Brunner (M)

University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Deborah Debono (D)

University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Leanne Togher (L)

University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Emma Power (E)

University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH