Televisits Compared With In-Person Visits for Routine Antenatal Care: A Systematic Review.
Journal
Obstetrics and gynecology
ISSN: 1873-233X
Titre abrégé: Obstet Gynecol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0401101
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jul 2023
01 Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
20
12
2022
accepted:
23
02
2023
medline:
26
6
2023
pubmed:
8
6
2023
entrez:
8
6
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare benefits and harms of televisits and in-person visits in people receiving routine antenatal care. A search was conducted of PubMed, Cochrane databases, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov through February 12, 2022, for antenatal (prenatal) care, pregnancy, obstetrics, telemedicine, remote care, smartphones, telemonitoring, and related terms, as well as primary study designs. The search was restricted to high-income countries. Double independent screening was done in Abstrackr for studies comparing televisits and in-person routine antenatal care visits for maternal, child, health care utilization, and harm outcomes. Data were extracted into SRDRplus with review by a second researcher. Two randomized controlled trials, four nonrandomized comparative studies, and one survey compared visit types between 2004 and 2020, three of which were conducted during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Number, timing, and mode of televisits and who provided care varied across studies. Low-strength evidence from studies comparing hybrid (televisits and in-person visits) and all in-person visits did not indicate differences in rates of neonatal intensive care unit admission of the newborn (summary odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% CI 0.82-1.28) or preterm births (summary OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84-1.03). However, the studies with stronger, although still statistically nonsignificant, associations between use of hybrid visits and preterm birth compared the COVID-19 pandemic and prepandemic eras, confounding the association. There is low-strength evidence that satisfaction with overall antenatal care was greater in people who were pregnant and receiving hybrid visits. Other outcomes were sparsely reported. People who are pregnant may prefer hybrid televisits and in-person visits. Although there is no evidence of differences in clinical outcomes between hybrid visits and in-person visits, the evidence is insufficient to evaluate most outcomes. PROSPERO, CRD42021272287.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37290109
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005194
pii: 00006250-202307000-00005
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
19-29Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Financial Disclosure Alex Friedman Peahl is a paid consultant for Maven Clinic. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.
Références
Ekeland AG, Bowes A, Flottorp S. Effectiveness of telemedicine: a systematic review of reviews. Int J Med Inform 2010;79:736–71. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.08.006
doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.08.006
Bezerra GMF, de Lucena Feitosa ES, Vale Catunda JG. Telemedicine application and assessment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stud Health Technol Inform 2022;290:854–7. doi: 10.3233/shti220200
doi: 10.3233/shti220200
Almathami HKY, Win KT, Vlahu-Gjorgievska E. Barriers and facilitators that influence telemedicine-based, real-time, online consultation at patients' homes: systematic literature review. J Med Internet Res 2020;22:e16407. doi: 10.2196/16407
doi: 10.2196/16407
Chang JE, Lai AY, Gupta A, Nguyen AM, Berry CA, Shelley DR. Rapid transition to telehealth and the digital divide: implications for primary care access and equity in a post-COVID era. Milbank Q 2021;99:340–68. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12509
doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12509
Ftouni R, AlJardali B, Hamdanieh M, Ftouni L, Salem N. Challenges of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2022;22:207. doi: 10.1186/s12911-022-01952-0
doi: 10.1186/s12911-022-01952-0
Balk EM, Konnyu KJ, Cao W, Reddy Bhuma M, Danilack VA, Adam GP, et al. Schedule of visits and televisits for routine antenatal care: a systematic review. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 257. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2022.
Konnyu KJ, Danilack VA, Adam GP, Friedman Peahl A, Cao W, Balk EM. Changes to prenatal care visit frequency and telehealth: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Obstet Gynecol 2023;141:299–323. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005046
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005046
Balk EM, Danilack VA, Reddy Bhuma M, Cao W, Konnyu KJ, Adam GP, et al. Reduced compared with traditional schedules for routine antenatal visits: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2023;142:8–18. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005193
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005193
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1006–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005
Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017;358:j4008. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008
doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Effective Health Care Program. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. Accessed December 13, 2022. https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/topics/cer-methods-guide/overview
Wallace BC, Small K, Brodley CE, Lau J, Trikalinos TA. Deploying an interactive machine learning system in an evidence-based practice center: abstrackr. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium. Association for Computing Machinery; 2012.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Systematic review data repository. Accessed December 19, 2022. https://srdrplus.ahrq.gov/
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898
doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898
Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919
doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919
Barbour KD, Nelson R, Esplin MS, Varner M, Clark EA. A randomized trial of prenatal care using telemedicine for low-risk pregnancies: patient-related cost and time savings [abstract]. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216:S499. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.11.782
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.11.782
Butler Tobah YS, LeBlanc A, Branda ME, Inselman JW, Morria MA, Ridgeway JL, et al. Randomized comparison of a reduced-visit prenatal care model enhanced with remote monitoring. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019;221:638.e1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.06.034
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.06.034
Ridgeway JL, LeBlanc A, Branda M, Harms RW, Morris MA, Nesbitt K, et al. Implementation of a new prenatal care model to reduce office visits and increase connectivity and continuity of care: protocol for a mixed-methods study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015;15:323. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0762-2
doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0762-2
Theiler RN, Butler-Tobah Y, Hathcock MA, Famuyide A. OB Nest randomized controlled trial: a cost comparison of reduced visit compared to traditional prenatal care. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2021;21:71. doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-03557-3
doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-03557-3
Duryea EL, Adhikari EH, Ambia A, Spong C, McIntire D, Nelson DB. Comparison between in-person and audio-only virtual prenatal visits and perinatal outcomes. JAMA Netw Open 2021;4:e215854. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.5854
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.5854
Palmer KR, Tanner M, Davies-Tuck M, Rindt A, Papacostas K, Giles ML, et al. Widespread implementation of a low-cost telehealth service in the delivery of antenatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic: an interrupted time-series analysis. Lancet 2021;398:41–52. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00668-1
doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00668-1
Pflugeisen BM, McCarren C, Poore S, Carlile M, Schroeder R. Virtual visits: managing prenatal care with modern technology. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs 2016;41:24–30. doi: 10.1097/nmc.0000000000000199
doi: 10.1097/nmc.0000000000000199
Pflugeisen BM, Mou J. Patient satisfaction with virtual obstetric care. Matern Child Health J 2017;21:1544–51. doi: 10.1007/s10995-017-2284-1
doi: 10.1007/s10995-017-2284-1
Futterman I, Rosenfeld E, Toaff M, Addressing disparities in prenatal care via telehealth during COVID-19: prenatal satisfaction survey in east Harlem. Am J Perinatol 2021;38:88–92. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1718695
doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1718695
O'Neill J, Tabish H, Welch V, Petticrew M, Pottie K, Clarke M,, et al. Applying an equity lens to interventions: using PROGRESS ensures consideration of socially stratifying factors to illuminate inequities in health. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:56–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.005
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.005
Tipre M, Bolaji B, Blanchard C, Harrelson A, Szychowski J, Sinkey R,, et al. Relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and severe maternal morbidity and maternal mortality. Ethn Dis 2022;32:293–304. doi: 10.18865/ed.32.4.293
doi: 10.18865/ed.32.4.293