Ryan K McBain1, Jessica L Sousa2, Adam J Rose2,3, Sangita M Baxi4, Laura J Faherty2, Caroline Taplin5, Andre Chappel5, Shira H Fischer2. 1. RAND Corporation, Boston, MA, USA. rmcbain@rand.org. 2. RAND Corporation, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 4. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA. 5. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Washington, DC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) and related models of medical tele-education are rapidly expanding; however, their effectiveness remains unclear. This systematic review examines the effectiveness of ECHO and ECHO-like medical tele-education models of healthcare delivery in terms of improved provider- and patient-related outcomes. METHODS: We searched English-language studies in PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO databases from 1 January 2007 to 1 December 2018 as well as bibliography review. Two reviewers independently screened citations for peer-reviewed publications reporting provider- and/or patient-related outcomes of technology-enabled collaborative learning models that satisfied six criteria of the ECHO framework. Reviewers then independently abstracted data, assessed study quality, and rated strength of evidence (SOE) based on Cochrane GRADE criteria. RESULTS: Data from 52 peer-reviewed articles were included. Forty-three reported provider-related outcomes; 15 reported patient-related outcomes. Studies on provider-related outcomes suggested favorable results across three domains: satisfaction, increased knowledge, and increased clinical confidence. However, SOE was low, relying primarily on self-reports and surveys with low response rates. One randomized trial has been conducted. For patient-related outcomes, 11 of 15 studies incorporated a comparison group; none involved randomization. Four studies reported care outcomes, while 11 reported changes in care processes. Evidence suggested effectiveness at improving outcomes for patients with hepatitis C, chronic pain, dementia, and type 2 diabetes. Evidence is generally low-quality, retrospective, non-experimental, and subject to social desirability bias and low survey response rates. DISCUSSION: The number of studies examining ECHO and ECHO-like models of medical tele-education has been modest compared with the scope and scale of implementation throughout the USA and internationally. Given the potential of ECHO to broaden access to healthcare in rural, remote, and underserved communities, more studies are needed to evaluate effectiveness. This need for evidence follows similar patterns to other service delivery models in the literature.
BACKGROUND: Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) and related models of medical tele-education are rapidly expanding; however, their effectiveness remains unclear. This systematic review examines the effectiveness of ECHO and ECHO-like medical tele-education models of healthcare delivery in terms of improved provider- and patient-related outcomes. METHODS: We searched English-language studies in PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO databases from 1 January 2007 to 1 December 2018 as well as bibliography review. Two reviewers independently screened citations for peer-reviewed publications reporting provider- and/or patient-related outcomes of technology-enabled collaborative learning models that satisfied six criteria of the ECHO framework. Reviewers then independently abstracted data, assessed study quality, and rated strength of evidence (SOE) based on Cochrane GRADE criteria. RESULTS: Data from 52 peer-reviewed articles were included. Forty-three reported provider-related outcomes; 15 reported patient-related outcomes. Studies on provider-related outcomes suggested favorable results across three domains: satisfaction, increased knowledge, and increased clinical confidence. However, SOE was low, relying primarily on self-reports and surveys with low response rates. One randomized trial has been conducted. For patient-related outcomes, 11 of 15 studies incorporated a comparison group; none involved randomization. Four studies reported care outcomes, while 11 reported changes in care processes. Evidence suggested effectiveness at improving outcomes for patients with hepatitis C, chronic pain, dementia, and type 2 diabetes. Evidence is generally low-quality, retrospective, non-experimental, and subject to social desirability bias and low survey response rates. DISCUSSION: The number of studies examining ECHO and ECHO-like models of medical tele-education has been modest compared with the scope and scale of implementation throughout the USA and internationally. Given the potential of ECHO to broaden access to healthcare in rural, remote, and underserved communities, more studies are needed to evaluate effectiveness. This need for evidence follows similar patterns to other service delivery models in the literature.
Authors: Emily Haozous; Ardith Z Doorenbos; George Demiris; Linda H Eaton; Cara Towle; Anjana Kundu; Dedra Buchwald Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Elisa Fisher; Michael Hasselberg; Yeates Conwell; Linda Weiss; Norma A Padrón; Erin Tiernan; Jurgis Karuza; Jeremy Donath; José A Pagán Journal: Popul Health Manag Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 2.459
Authors: Kristina M Cordasco; Jessica L Zuchowski; Alison B Hamilton; Susan Kirsh; Laure Veet; Joann O Saavedra; Lisa Altman; Herschel Knapp; Mark Canning; Donna L Washington Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Angela G Catic; Melissa L P Mattison; Innokentiy Bakaev; Marisa Morgan; Sara M Monti; Lewis Lipsitz Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2014-10-11 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Kurt L Johnson; Deborah Hertz; Gary Stobbe; Kevin Alschuler; Rosalind Kalb; Katharine S Alexander; George H Kraft; John D Scott Journal: Int J MS Care Date: 2017 Nov-Dec
Authors: Timothy Callaghan; Carly McCord; David Washburn; Kirby Goidel; Cason Schmit; Tasmiah Nuzhath; Abigail Spiegelman; Julia Scobee Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2022 Jan-Dec
Authors: Alyssa B Weiss; Katherine M Newnam; Christina Wyles; Kimberly Shea; Sheila M Gephart Journal: Adv Neonatal Care Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 1.874
Authors: Brian R Wood; Karin Bauer; Richard Lechtenberg; Susan E Buskin; Lea Bush; Jeff Capizzi; Beth Crutsinger-Perry; Steven J Erly; Timothy W Menza; Jennifer R Reuer; Matthew R Golden; James P Hughes Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2022-08-15 Impact factor: 3.771
Authors: Joel C Cantor; Sujoy Chakravarty; Jennifer Farnham; Jose Nova; Sana Ahmad; James H Flory Journal: Med Care Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 3.178
Authors: Sheridan Miyamoto; Elizabeth Thiede; Elizabeth N Wright; Diane Berish; Daniel F Perkins; Cynthia Bittner; Lorah Dorn; Dennis Scanlon Journal: J Forensic Nurs Date: 2021 Jul-Sep 01 Impact factor: 1.175