Digital Health Interventions among People Living with Frailty: A Scoping Review
Digital health interventions (DHIs) are interesting resources to improve various health conditions. However, their use in the older and frail population is still sparse. We aimed to give an overview of DHI used in the frail older population. Scoping review with PRISMA guidelines based on Population,...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2021-09, Vol.22 (9), p.1802-1812.e21 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1812.e21 |
---|---|
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | 1802 |
container_title | Journal of the American Medical Directors Association |
container_volume | 22 |
creator | Linn, Nyan Goetzinger, Catherine Regnaux, Jean-Philippe Schmitz, Susanne Dessenne, Coralie Fagherazzi, Guy Aguayo, Gloria A. |
description | Digital health interventions (DHIs) are interesting resources to improve various health conditions. However, their use in the older and frail population is still sparse. We aimed to give an overview of DHI used in the frail older population.
Scoping review with PRISMA guidelines based on Population, Concept, and Context.
We included original studies in English with DHI (concept) on people described as frail (population) in the clinical or community setting (context) and no limitation on date of publication. We searched 3 online databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science).
We described DHI in terms of purpose, delivering, content and assessment. We also described frailty assessment and study design.
We included 105 studies that fulfilled our eligibility criteria. The most frequently reported DHIs were with the purpose of monitoring (45; 43%), with a delivery method of sensor-based technologies (59; 56%), with a content of feedback to users (34; 32%), and for assessment of feasibility (57; 54%). Efficacy was reported in 31 (30%) studies and usability/feasibility in 57 (55%) studies. The most common study design was descriptive exploratory for new methodology or technology (24; 23%). There were 14 (13%) randomized controlled trials, with only 4 of 14 studies (29%) showing a low or moderate risk of bias. Frailty assessment using validated scales was reported in only 47 (45%) studies.
There was much heterogeneity among frailty assessments, study designs, and evaluations of DHIs. There is now a strong need for more standardized approaches to assess frailty, well-structured randomized controlled trials, and proper evaluation and report. This work will contribute to the development of better DHIs in this vulnerable population. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jamda.2021.04.012 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2528818932</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S152586102100390X</els_id><sourcerecordid>2528818932</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-792288897963f140c526d7863632f3bcaa66725a737088315a5814dbb927a81d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtPAjEQgBujEUR_gYnZo5dd-9h2uyYeCIqQkGB8nJvSHbBkH9guEP69RdCjp3nkm5nMh9A1wQnBRNwtk6WuCp1QTEmC0wQTeoK6hDMZ5yzjp_uc8lgKgjvowvslxhSTXJyjDktxKITooumjXdhWl9EIdNl-RuO6BbeBurVN7SNdNfUieoFmVUI0sRsbqq0N2NBpW7a7-6gfvZlmte-_wsbC9hKdzXXp4eoYe-hj-PQ-GMWT6fN40J_EJuVpG2c5pVLKPMsFm5MUG05FkUnBBKNzNjNaC5FRrjOWYSkZ4ZpLkhazWU4zLUnBeuj2sHflmq81-FZV1hsoS11Ds_aK8rCfyJzRgLIDalzjvYO5WjlbabdTBKu9SbVUPybV3qTCqQomw9TN8cB6VkHxN_OrLgAPBwDCm-F1p7yxUBsorAPTqqKx_x74BjxYgvg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2528818932</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Digital Health Interventions among People Living with Frailty: A Scoping Review</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Linn, Nyan ; Goetzinger, Catherine ; Regnaux, Jean-Philippe ; Schmitz, Susanne ; Dessenne, Coralie ; Fagherazzi, Guy ; Aguayo, Gloria A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Linn, Nyan ; Goetzinger, Catherine ; Regnaux, Jean-Philippe ; Schmitz, Susanne ; Dessenne, Coralie ; Fagherazzi, Guy ; Aguayo, Gloria A.</creatorcontrib><description>Digital health interventions (DHIs) are interesting resources to improve various health conditions. However, their use in the older and frail population is still sparse. We aimed to give an overview of DHI used in the frail older population.
Scoping review with PRISMA guidelines based on Population, Concept, and Context.
We included original studies in English with DHI (concept) on people described as frail (population) in the clinical or community setting (context) and no limitation on date of publication. We searched 3 online databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science).
We described DHI in terms of purpose, delivering, content and assessment. We also described frailty assessment and study design.
We included 105 studies that fulfilled our eligibility criteria. The most frequently reported DHIs were with the purpose of monitoring (45; 43%), with a delivery method of sensor-based technologies (59; 56%), with a content of feedback to users (34; 32%), and for assessment of feasibility (57; 54%). Efficacy was reported in 31 (30%) studies and usability/feasibility in 57 (55%) studies. The most common study design was descriptive exploratory for new methodology or technology (24; 23%). There were 14 (13%) randomized controlled trials, with only 4 of 14 studies (29%) showing a low or moderate risk of bias. Frailty assessment using validated scales was reported in only 47 (45%) studies.
There was much heterogeneity among frailty assessments, study designs, and evaluations of DHIs. There is now a strong need for more standardized approaches to assess frailty, well-structured randomized controlled trials, and proper evaluation and report. This work will contribute to the development of better DHIs in this vulnerable population.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1525-8610</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1538-9375</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2021.04.012</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34000266</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>digital health ; eHealth ; Frailty ; mobile health ; older population ; telehealth</subject><ispartof>Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 2021-09, Vol.22 (9), p.1802-1812.e21</ispartof><rights>2021 The Authors</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-792288897963f140c526d7863632f3bcaa66725a737088315a5814dbb927a81d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-792288897963f140c526d7863632f3bcaa66725a737088315a5814dbb927a81d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5625-1664</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2021.04.012$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,45974</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34000266$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Linn, Nyan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goetzinger, Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Regnaux, Jean-Philippe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmitz, Susanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dessenne, Coralie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fagherazzi, Guy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aguayo, Gloria A.</creatorcontrib><title>Digital Health Interventions among People Living with Frailty: A Scoping Review</title><title>Journal of the American Medical Directors Association</title><addtitle>J Am Med Dir Assoc</addtitle><description>Digital health interventions (DHIs) are interesting resources to improve various health conditions. However, their use in the older and frail population is still sparse. We aimed to give an overview of DHI used in the frail older population.
Scoping review with PRISMA guidelines based on Population, Concept, and Context.
We included original studies in English with DHI (concept) on people described as frail (population) in the clinical or community setting (context) and no limitation on date of publication. We searched 3 online databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science).
We described DHI in terms of purpose, delivering, content and assessment. We also described frailty assessment and study design.
We included 105 studies that fulfilled our eligibility criteria. The most frequently reported DHIs were with the purpose of monitoring (45; 43%), with a delivery method of sensor-based technologies (59; 56%), with a content of feedback to users (34; 32%), and for assessment of feasibility (57; 54%). Efficacy was reported in 31 (30%) studies and usability/feasibility in 57 (55%) studies. The most common study design was descriptive exploratory for new methodology or technology (24; 23%). There were 14 (13%) randomized controlled trials, with only 4 of 14 studies (29%) showing a low or moderate risk of bias. Frailty assessment using validated scales was reported in only 47 (45%) studies.
There was much heterogeneity among frailty assessments, study designs, and evaluations of DHIs. There is now a strong need for more standardized approaches to assess frailty, well-structured randomized controlled trials, and proper evaluation and report. This work will contribute to the development of better DHIs in this vulnerable population.</description><subject>digital health</subject><subject>eHealth</subject><subject>Frailty</subject><subject>mobile health</subject><subject>older population</subject><subject>telehealth</subject><issn>1525-8610</issn><issn>1538-9375</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEtPAjEQgBujEUR_gYnZo5dd-9h2uyYeCIqQkGB8nJvSHbBkH9guEP69RdCjp3nkm5nMh9A1wQnBRNwtk6WuCp1QTEmC0wQTeoK6hDMZ5yzjp_uc8lgKgjvowvslxhSTXJyjDktxKITooumjXdhWl9EIdNl-RuO6BbeBurVN7SNdNfUieoFmVUI0sRsbqq0N2NBpW7a7-6gfvZlmte-_wsbC9hKdzXXp4eoYe-hj-PQ-GMWT6fN40J_EJuVpG2c5pVLKPMsFm5MUG05FkUnBBKNzNjNaC5FRrjOWYSkZ4ZpLkhazWU4zLUnBeuj2sHflmq81-FZV1hsoS11Ds_aK8rCfyJzRgLIDalzjvYO5WjlbabdTBKu9SbVUPybV3qTCqQomw9TN8cB6VkHxN_OrLgAPBwDCm-F1p7yxUBsorAPTqqKx_x74BjxYgvg</recordid><startdate>20210901</startdate><enddate>20210901</enddate><creator>Linn, Nyan</creator><creator>Goetzinger, Catherine</creator><creator>Regnaux, Jean-Philippe</creator><creator>Schmitz, Susanne</creator><creator>Dessenne, Coralie</creator><creator>Fagherazzi, Guy</creator><creator>Aguayo, Gloria A.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5625-1664</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210901</creationdate><title>Digital Health Interventions among People Living with Frailty: A Scoping Review</title><author>Linn, Nyan ; Goetzinger, Catherine ; Regnaux, Jean-Philippe ; Schmitz, Susanne ; Dessenne, Coralie ; Fagherazzi, Guy ; Aguayo, Gloria A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-792288897963f140c526d7863632f3bcaa66725a737088315a5814dbb927a81d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>digital health</topic><topic>eHealth</topic><topic>Frailty</topic><topic>mobile health</topic><topic>older population</topic><topic>telehealth</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Linn, Nyan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goetzinger, Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Regnaux, Jean-Philippe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmitz, Susanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dessenne, Coralie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fagherazzi, Guy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aguayo, Gloria A.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of the American Medical Directors Association</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Linn, Nyan</au><au>Goetzinger, Catherine</au><au>Regnaux, Jean-Philippe</au><au>Schmitz, Susanne</au><au>Dessenne, Coralie</au><au>Fagherazzi, Guy</au><au>Aguayo, Gloria A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Digital Health Interventions among People Living with Frailty: A Scoping Review</atitle><jtitle>Journal of the American Medical Directors Association</jtitle><addtitle>J Am Med Dir Assoc</addtitle><date>2021-09-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1802</spage><epage>1812.e21</epage><pages>1802-1812.e21</pages><issn>1525-8610</issn><eissn>1538-9375</eissn><abstract>Digital health interventions (DHIs) are interesting resources to improve various health conditions. However, their use in the older and frail population is still sparse. We aimed to give an overview of DHI used in the frail older population.
Scoping review with PRISMA guidelines based on Population, Concept, and Context.
We included original studies in English with DHI (concept) on people described as frail (population) in the clinical or community setting (context) and no limitation on date of publication. We searched 3 online databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science).
We described DHI in terms of purpose, delivering, content and assessment. We also described frailty assessment and study design.
We included 105 studies that fulfilled our eligibility criteria. The most frequently reported DHIs were with the purpose of monitoring (45; 43%), with a delivery method of sensor-based technologies (59; 56%), with a content of feedback to users (34; 32%), and for assessment of feasibility (57; 54%). Efficacy was reported in 31 (30%) studies and usability/feasibility in 57 (55%) studies. The most common study design was descriptive exploratory for new methodology or technology (24; 23%). There were 14 (13%) randomized controlled trials, with only 4 of 14 studies (29%) showing a low or moderate risk of bias. Frailty assessment using validated scales was reported in only 47 (45%) studies.
There was much heterogeneity among frailty assessments, study designs, and evaluations of DHIs. There is now a strong need for more standardized approaches to assess frailty, well-structured randomized controlled trials, and proper evaluation and report. This work will contribute to the development of better DHIs in this vulnerable population.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>34000266</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jamda.2021.04.012</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5625-1664</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1525-8610 |
ispartof | Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 2021-09, Vol.22 (9), p.1802-1812.e21 |
issn | 1525-8610 1538-9375 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2528818932 |
source | ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
subjects | digital health eHealth Frailty mobile health older population telehealth |
title | Digital Health Interventions among People Living with Frailty: A Scoping Review |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T02%3A15%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Digital%20Health%20Interventions%20among%20People%20Living%20with%20Frailty:%20A%20Scoping%20Review&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20the%20American%20Medical%20Directors%20Association&rft.au=Linn,%20Nyan&rft.date=2021-09-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1802&rft.epage=1812.e21&rft.pages=1802-1812.e21&rft.issn=1525-8610&rft.eissn=1538-9375&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jamda.2021.04.012&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2528818932%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2528818932&rft_id=info:pmid/34000266&rft_els_id=S152586102100390X&rfr_iscdi=true |