Optimising the implementation of digital-supported interventions for the secondary prevention of heart disease: a systematic review using the RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework.
Health care
Implementation evaluation
RE-AIM
Secondary prevention
Systematic review
eHealth
mHealth
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Dec 2023
04 Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
12
10
2023
accepted:
22
11
2023
medline:
6
12
2023
pubmed:
5
12
2023
entrez:
4
12
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
mHealth technologies are now widely utilised to support the delivery of secondary prevention programs in heart disease. Interventions with mHealth included have shown a similar efficacy and safety to conventional programs with improvements in access and adherence. However, questions remain regarding the successful wider implementation of digital-supported programs. By applying the Reach-Effectiveness-Adoption-Implementation-Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to a systematic review and meta-analysis, this review aims to evaluate the extent to which these programs report on RE-AIM dimensions and associated indicators. This review extends our previous systematic review and meta-analysis that investigated the effectiveness of digital-supported programs for patients with coronary artery disease. Citation searches were performed on the 27 studies of the systematic review to identify linked publications that reported data for RE-AIM dimensions. All included studies and, where relevant, any additional publications, were coded using an adapted RE-AIM extraction tool. Discrepant codes were discussed amongst reviewers to gain consensus. Data were analysed to assess reporting on indicators related to each of the RE-AIM dimensions, and average overall reporting rates for each dimension were calculated. Searches found an additional nine publications. Across 36 publications that were linked to the 27 studies, 24 (89%) of the studies were interventions solely delivered at home. The average reporting rates for RE-AIM dimensions were highest for effectiveness (75%) and reach (67%), followed by adoption (54%), implementation (36%) and maintenance (11%). Eleven (46%) studies did not describe relevant characteristics of their participants or of staff involved in the intervention; most studies did not describe unanticipated consequences of the intervention; the ongoing cost of intervention implementation and maintenance; information on intervention fidelity; long-term follow-up outcomes, or program adaptation in other settings. Through the application of the RE-AIM framework to a systematic review we found most studies failed to report on key indicators. Failing to report these indicators inhibits the ability to address the enablers and barriers required to achieve optimal intervention implementation in wider settings and populations. Future studies should consider alternative hybrid trial designs to enable reporting of implementation indicators to improve the translation of research evidence into routine practice, with special consideration given to the long-term sustainability of program effects as well as corresponding ongoing costs. PROSPERO-CRD42022343030.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
mHealth technologies are now widely utilised to support the delivery of secondary prevention programs in heart disease. Interventions with mHealth included have shown a similar efficacy and safety to conventional programs with improvements in access and adherence. However, questions remain regarding the successful wider implementation of digital-supported programs. By applying the Reach-Effectiveness-Adoption-Implementation-Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to a systematic review and meta-analysis, this review aims to evaluate the extent to which these programs report on RE-AIM dimensions and associated indicators.
METHODS
METHODS
This review extends our previous systematic review and meta-analysis that investigated the effectiveness of digital-supported programs for patients with coronary artery disease. Citation searches were performed on the 27 studies of the systematic review to identify linked publications that reported data for RE-AIM dimensions. All included studies and, where relevant, any additional publications, were coded using an adapted RE-AIM extraction tool. Discrepant codes were discussed amongst reviewers to gain consensus. Data were analysed to assess reporting on indicators related to each of the RE-AIM dimensions, and average overall reporting rates for each dimension were calculated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Searches found an additional nine publications. Across 36 publications that were linked to the 27 studies, 24 (89%) of the studies were interventions solely delivered at home. The average reporting rates for RE-AIM dimensions were highest for effectiveness (75%) and reach (67%), followed by adoption (54%), implementation (36%) and maintenance (11%). Eleven (46%) studies did not describe relevant characteristics of their participants or of staff involved in the intervention; most studies did not describe unanticipated consequences of the intervention; the ongoing cost of intervention implementation and maintenance; information on intervention fidelity; long-term follow-up outcomes, or program adaptation in other settings.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Through the application of the RE-AIM framework to a systematic review we found most studies failed to report on key indicators. Failing to report these indicators inhibits the ability to address the enablers and barriers required to achieve optimal intervention implementation in wider settings and populations. Future studies should consider alternative hybrid trial designs to enable reporting of implementation indicators to improve the translation of research evidence into routine practice, with special consideration given to the long-term sustainability of program effects as well as corresponding ongoing costs.
REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
PROSPERO-CRD42022343030.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38049862
doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-10361-6
pii: 10.1186/s12913-023-10361-6
pmc: PMC10694952
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1347Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Clin Transl Sci. 2021 May 14;5(1):e126
pubmed: 34367671
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Apr 1;3(4):e202165
pubmed: 32297946
Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2015 Apr;14(2):170-9
pubmed: 24491349
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Dec 12;(12):CD011273
pubmed: 25503364
J Telemed Telecare. 2021 Sep;27(8):473-483
pubmed: 31760855
Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Mar 30;11(7):
pubmed: 37046921
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Nov 6;11:CD001800
pubmed: 34741536
JAMA Cardiol. 2021 Apr 1;6(4):463-468
pubmed: 33112363
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2020 May;29(5):513-517
pubmed: 32237005
J Surg Res. 2016 Jul;204(1):1-7
pubmed: 27451860
Am Heart J. 2017 Jun;188:65-72
pubmed: 28577682
Heart Lung. 2008 Jan-Feb;37(1):36-45
pubmed: 18206525
J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2012 Jan-Feb;32(1):25-31
pubmed: 22113368
Can J Cardiol. 2017 Feb;33(2):219-231
pubmed: 27956043
Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2019 Jan;18(1):38-47
pubmed: 29909641
J Health Commun. 2011;16 Suppl 3:55-72
pubmed: 21951243
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Feb 23;18(2):e40
pubmed: 26907584
Eur J Public Health. 2020 Feb 1;30(1):179-188
pubmed: 31410447
Coron Artery Dis. 2021 Aug 1;32(5):432-440
pubmed: 32868661
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Aug;100:92-102
pubmed: 29660481
Open Heart. 2019 Jun 5;6(1):e000989
pubmed: 31245012
Glob Health Sci Pract. 2018 Oct 10;6(Suppl 1):S5-S17
pubmed: 30305335
JMIR Ment Health. 2018 Mar 16;5(1):e20
pubmed: 29549072
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Aug 1;177(8):1093-1101
pubmed: 28654972
Front Public Health. 2019 Nov 22;7:345
pubmed: 31824911
Future Cardiol. 2022 Feb;18(2):154-164
pubmed: 33860679
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Sep 24;9(9):e29928
pubmed: 34559058
J Med Internet Res. 2013 Feb 14;15(2):e35
pubmed: 23410671
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2021 Jul;14(7):e007741
pubmed: 34261332
Med Care. 2012 Mar;50(3):217-26
pubmed: 22310560
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Oct 21;17(10):e237
pubmed: 26490012
Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 08;4:155
pubmed: 26547687
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2022 May 25;29(7):e255-e257
pubmed: 35040993
Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1
pubmed: 25554246
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004 Jun 29;2:32
pubmed: 15225377
J Med Internet Res. 2020 May 21;22(5):e16157
pubmed: 32436852
Am J Public Health. 2013 Jun;103(6):e38-46
pubmed: 23597377
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 May 19;65(19):2079-88
pubmed: 25975470
Eur Heart J Digit Health. 2021 Feb 04;2(1):62-74
pubmed: 34048508
Am Heart J. 2020 Oct;228:17-26
pubmed: 32745732
Digit Health. 2020 Jan 07;6:2055207619898987
pubmed: 32030193
Am J Public Health. 1999 Sep;89(9):1322-7
pubmed: 10474547
Nat Rev Cardiol. 2022 Mar;19(3):180-194
pubmed: 34531576
J Adv Nurs. 2020 Mar;76(3):754-772
pubmed: 31769527
J Med Internet Res. 2013 Oct 04;15(10):e224
pubmed: 24095951
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2021 May;14(5):e000103
pubmed: 33793309
Implement Sci. 2013 Jun 10;8:65
pubmed: 23758995
Circulation. 2019 Jul 2;140(1):e69-e89
pubmed: 31082266
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2017 Aug;24(12):1260-1273
pubmed: 28534417
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Jun 1;27(6):946-956
pubmed: 32377676
Can J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2015 Winter;25(1):10-5
pubmed: 26336692
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2017 Nov;24(16):1708-1717
pubmed: 28925749
Can J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2009;19(3):9-15
pubmed: 19694112
Heart. 2019 Jan;105(2):122-129
pubmed: 30150328
JAMA. 2015 Sep 22-29;314(12):1255-63
pubmed: 26393848
Circulation. 2011 Dec 20;124(25):2951-60
pubmed: 22082676
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 30;6:CD007130
pubmed: 28665511
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2012 Dec;19(6):1357-64
pubmed: 21903744
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014 Nov;7(6):952-9
pubmed: 25271050
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2015 Feb;22(2):150-8
pubmed: 24249840
J Adv Nurs. 2020 Oct;76(10):2670-2684
pubmed: 32761638
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Feb 26;9(3):
pubmed: 33652809
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021 Nov;102(11):2091-2101.e3
pubmed: 34175270