Violeta Gaveikaite1, Casandra Grundstrom2, Stefan Winter3, Ioanna Chouvarda4, Nicos Maglaveras5, Rita Priori6. 1. Laboratory of Computing, Medical Informatics and Biomedical Imaging Technologies, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 54636, Greece; Department of Chronic Disease Management, Philips Research, High Tech Campus 34, Eindhoven, 5656AE, the Netherlands. Electronic address: violeta.gaveikaite@philips.com. 2. M3S, Department of Information Processing Science, University of Oulu, Pentti Kaiteran katu 1, Oulu, FI-90014, Finland. Electronic address: casandra.grundstrom@oulu.fi. 3. Department of Chronic Disease Management, Philips Research, Pauwelsstraße 17, Aachen, 52074, Germany. Electronic address: stefan.winter@philips.com. 4. Laboratory of Computing, Medical Informatics and Biomedical Imaging Technologies, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 54636, Greece. Electronic address: ioannach@auth.gr. 5. Laboratory of Computing, Medical Informatics and Biomedical Imaging Technologies, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 54636, Greece; Department of IEMS in McCormick School of Engineering, Northwestern University, 2145 Sheridan Road Tech C210, Evanston, IL, 60208, USA. Electronic address: nicmag@certh.gr. 6. Department of Smart Interfaces and Modules, Philips Research, High Tech Campus 34, Eindhoven, 5656AE, the Netherlands. Electronic address: rita.priori@philips.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence to support the implementation of telehealth (TH) interventions in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) varies throughout Europe. Despite more than ten years of TH research in COPD management, it is still not possible to define which TH interventions are beneficial to which patient group. Therefore, informing policymakers on TH implementation is complicated. We aimed to examine the provision and efficacy of TH for COPD management to guide future decision-making. METHODS: A mapping study of twelve systematic reviews of TH interventions for COPD management was conducted. This was followed by an in-depth review of fourteen clinical trials performed in Europe extracted from the systematic reviews. Efficacy outcomes for COPD management were synthesized. RESULTS: The mapping study revealed that systematic reviews with a meta-analysis often report positive clinical outcomes. Despite this, we identified a lack of pragmatic trial design affecting the synthesis of reported outcomes. The in-depth review visualized outcomes for three TH categories, which revealed a plethora of heterogeneous outcomes. Suggestions for reporting within these three outcomes are synthesized as targets for future empirical research reporting. CONCLUSION: The present study indicates the need for more standardized and updated systematic reviews. Policymakers should advocate for improved TH trial designs, focusing on the entire intervention's adoption process evaluation. One of the policymakers' priorities should be the harmonization of the outcome sets, which would be considered suitable for deciding about subsequent reimbursement. We propose possible outcome sets in three TH categories which could be used for discussion with stakeholders.
BACKGROUND: Evidence to support the implementation of telehealth (TH) interventions in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) varies throughout Europe. Despite more than ten years of TH research in COPD management, it is still not possible to define which TH interventions are beneficial to which patient group. Therefore, informing policymakers on TH implementation is complicated. We aimed to examine the provision and efficacy of TH for COPD management to guide future decision-making. METHODS: A mapping study of twelve systematic reviews of TH interventions for COPD management was conducted. This was followed by an in-depth review of fourteen clinical trials performed in Europe extracted from the systematic reviews. Efficacy outcomes for COPD management were synthesized. RESULTS: The mapping study revealed that systematic reviews with a meta-analysis often report positive clinical outcomes. Despite this, we identified a lack of pragmatic trial design affecting the synthesis of reported outcomes. The in-depth review visualized outcomes for three TH categories, which revealed a plethora of heterogeneous outcomes. Suggestions for reporting within these three outcomes are synthesized as targets for future empirical research reporting. CONCLUSION: The present study indicates the need for more standardized and updated systematic reviews. Policymakers should advocate for improved TH trial designs, focusing on the entire intervention's adoption process evaluation. One of the policymakers' priorities should be the harmonization of the outcome sets, which would be considered suitable for deciding about subsequent reimbursement. We propose possible outcome sets in three TH categories which could be used for discussion with stakeholders.
Authors: Frances Wu; Jenni Burt; Teena Chowdhury; Raymond Fitzpatrick; Graham Martin; Jan W van der Scheer; John R Hurst Journal: BMJ Open Respir Res Date: 2021-01
Authors: Sarah Miller; Ronald Teufel; Michelle Nichols; Paul Davenport; Martina Mueller; Erin Silverman; Mohan Madisetti; MaryChris Pittman; Teresa Kelechi; Charlie Strange Journal: Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis Date: 2021-12-03
Authors: Andrés Calvache-Mateo; Laura López-López; Alejandro Heredia-Ciuró; Javier Martín-Núñez; Janet Rodríguez-Torres; Araceli Ortiz-Rubio; Marie Carmen Valenza Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Blandine Chapel; François Alexandre; Nelly Heraud; Roxana Ologeanu-Taddei; Anne-Sophie Cases; François Bughin; Maurice Hayot Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-08-02 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Saeed M Alghamdi; Ahmed M Al Rajah; Yousef S Aldabayan; Abdulelah M Aldhahir; Jaber S Alqahtani; Abdulaziz A Alzahrani Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 3.390