Electronic, mobile and telehealth tools for vulnerable patients with chronic disease: a systematic review and realist synthesis

ObjectivesThe objective of this review was to assess the benefit of using electronic, mobile and telehealth tools for vulnerable patients with chronic disease and explore the mechanisms by which these impact patient self-efficacy and self-management.DesignWe searched MEDLINE, all evidence-based medi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMJ open 2018-08, Vol.8 (8), p.e019192-e019192
Hauptverfasser: Parker, Sharon, Prince, Amy, Thomas, Louise, Song, Hyun, Milosevic, Diana, Harris, Mark Fort
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e019192
container_issue 8
container_start_page e019192
container_title BMJ open
container_volume 8
creator Parker, Sharon
Prince, Amy
Thomas, Louise
Song, Hyun
Milosevic, Diana
Harris, Mark Fort
description ObjectivesThe objective of this review was to assess the benefit of using electronic, mobile and telehealth tools for vulnerable patients with chronic disease and explore the mechanisms by which these impact patient self-efficacy and self-management.DesignWe searched MEDLINE, all evidence-based medicine, CINAHL, Embase and PsychINFO covering the period 2009 to 2018 for electronic, mobile or telehealth interventions. Quality was assessed according to rigour and relevance. Those studies providing a richer description (‘thick’) were synthesised using a realist matrix.Setting and participantsStudies of any design conducted in community-based primary care involving adults with one or more diagnosed chronic health condition and vulnerability due to demographic, geographic, economic and/or cultural characteristics.ResultsEighteen trials were identified targeting a range of chronic conditions and vulnerabilities. The data provided limited insight into the mechanisms underpinning these interventions, most of which sought to persuade vulnerable patients into believing they could self-manage their conditions through improved symptom monitoring, education and support and goal setting. Patients were relatively passive in the interaction, and the level of patient response attributed to their intrinsic level of motivation. Health literacy, which may be confounded with motivation, was only measured in one study, and eHealth literacy was not assessed.ConclusionsResearch incorporating these tools with vulnerable groups is not comprehensive. Apart from intrinsic motivation, health literacy may also influence the reaction of vulnerable groups to technology. Social persuasion was the main way interventions sought to achieve better self-management. Efforts to engage patients by healthcare providers were lower than expected. Use of social networks or other eHealth mechanisms to link patients and provide opportunities for vicarious experience could be further explored in relation to vulnerable groups. Future research could also assess health and eHealth literacy and differentiate the specific needs for vulnerable groups when implementing health technologies.
doi_str_mv 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019192
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6119429</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2097349183</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b472t-84ceb261c2ee9cfe79580d6af8e474287bacc42525cd6b8571c451c55af979563</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU1rFTEUhoMottT-AkECblw4NckkM4kLoZT6AQU3ug6ZzBknl0xyTTK3dOVfN733WqorszmB85yHc3gReknJBaVt925YNnELoWGE9g2hiir2BJ0ywnnTESGePvqfoPOcN6Q-LpQQ7Dk6aQkVklF-in5de7AlxeDsW7zEwXnAJoy4gIcZjC8zLjH6jKeY8G71AZIZKrM1xUEoGd-6ith5b8Cjy2AyvMcG57tcYKmUxQl2Dm732lSVLpfaDWWG7PIL9GwyPsP5sZ6h7x-vv119bm6-fvpydXnTDLxnpZHcwsA6ahmAshP0SkgydmaSwHvOZD8YazkTTNixG6ToqeWCWiHMpCrbtWfow8G7XYcFRlt3T8brbXKLSXc6Gqf_7gQ36x9xpztKFWeqCt4cBSn-XCEXvbhswXsTIK5ZM6J6odpeyoq-_gfdxDWFet6earmisq1Ue6BsijknmB6WoUTfZ6yPGev7jPUh4zr16vEdDzN_Eq3AxQGo0_9l_A166rX1</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2097349183</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Electronic, mobile and telehealth tools for vulnerable patients with chronic disease: a systematic review and realist synthesis</title><source>BMJ Open Access Journals</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Parker, Sharon ; Prince, Amy ; Thomas, Louise ; Song, Hyun ; Milosevic, Diana ; Harris, Mark Fort</creator><creatorcontrib>Parker, Sharon ; Prince, Amy ; Thomas, Louise ; Song, Hyun ; Milosevic, Diana ; Harris, Mark Fort ; IMPACT Study Group</creatorcontrib><description>ObjectivesThe objective of this review was to assess the benefit of using electronic, mobile and telehealth tools for vulnerable patients with chronic disease and explore the mechanisms by which these impact patient self-efficacy and self-management.DesignWe searched MEDLINE, all evidence-based medicine, CINAHL, Embase and PsychINFO covering the period 2009 to 2018 for electronic, mobile or telehealth interventions. Quality was assessed according to rigour and relevance. Those studies providing a richer description (‘thick’) were synthesised using a realist matrix.Setting and participantsStudies of any design conducted in community-based primary care involving adults with one or more diagnosed chronic health condition and vulnerability due to demographic, geographic, economic and/or cultural characteristics.ResultsEighteen trials were identified targeting a range of chronic conditions and vulnerabilities. The data provided limited insight into the mechanisms underpinning these interventions, most of which sought to persuade vulnerable patients into believing they could self-manage their conditions through improved symptom monitoring, education and support and goal setting. Patients were relatively passive in the interaction, and the level of patient response attributed to their intrinsic level of motivation. Health literacy, which may be confounded with motivation, was only measured in one study, and eHealth literacy was not assessed.ConclusionsResearch incorporating these tools with vulnerable groups is not comprehensive. Apart from intrinsic motivation, health literacy may also influence the reaction of vulnerable groups to technology. Social persuasion was the main way interventions sought to achieve better self-management. Efforts to engage patients by healthcare providers were lower than expected. Use of social networks or other eHealth mechanisms to link patients and provide opportunities for vicarious experience could be further explored in relation to vulnerable groups. Future research could also assess health and eHealth literacy and differentiate the specific needs for vulnerable groups when implementing health technologies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2044-6055</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2044-6055</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019192</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30158214</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BMJ Publishing Group LTD</publisher><subject>Case management ; Chronic Disease - psychology ; Chronic Disease - therapy ; Chronic illnesses ; Collaboration ; Community ; Diabetes ; Electronics ; Evidence-based medicine ; General practice / Family practice ; Health Literacy ; Humans ; Internet ; Intervention ; Mental depression ; Patients ; Primary care ; Primary Health Care - methods ; Public health ; Rural areas ; Self Efficacy ; Self-Management ; Smartphone ; Smartphones ; Social Networking ; Systematic review ; Telemedicine ; Telephone ; Tumors ; Vulnerable Populations</subject><ispartof>BMJ open, 2018-08, Vol.8 (8), p.e019192-e019192</ispartof><rights>Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.</rights><rights>2018 Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b472t-84ceb261c2ee9cfe79580d6af8e474287bacc42525cd6b8571c451c55af979563</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b472t-84ceb261c2ee9cfe79580d6af8e474287bacc42525cd6b8571c451c55af979563</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/8/e019192.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/8/e019192.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,728,781,785,865,886,27551,27552,27926,27927,53793,53795,77603,77634</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30158214$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Parker, Sharon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prince, Amy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomas, Louise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Song, Hyun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Milosevic, Diana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harris, Mark Fort</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>IMPACT Study Group</creatorcontrib><title>Electronic, mobile and telehealth tools for vulnerable patients with chronic disease: a systematic review and realist synthesis</title><title>BMJ open</title><addtitle>BMJ Open</addtitle><description>ObjectivesThe objective of this review was to assess the benefit of using electronic, mobile and telehealth tools for vulnerable patients with chronic disease and explore the mechanisms by which these impact patient self-efficacy and self-management.DesignWe searched MEDLINE, all evidence-based medicine, CINAHL, Embase and PsychINFO covering the period 2009 to 2018 for electronic, mobile or telehealth interventions. Quality was assessed according to rigour and relevance. Those studies providing a richer description (‘thick’) were synthesised using a realist matrix.Setting and participantsStudies of any design conducted in community-based primary care involving adults with one or more diagnosed chronic health condition and vulnerability due to demographic, geographic, economic and/or cultural characteristics.ResultsEighteen trials were identified targeting a range of chronic conditions and vulnerabilities. The data provided limited insight into the mechanisms underpinning these interventions, most of which sought to persuade vulnerable patients into believing they could self-manage their conditions through improved symptom monitoring, education and support and goal setting. Patients were relatively passive in the interaction, and the level of patient response attributed to their intrinsic level of motivation. Health literacy, which may be confounded with motivation, was only measured in one study, and eHealth literacy was not assessed.ConclusionsResearch incorporating these tools with vulnerable groups is not comprehensive. Apart from intrinsic motivation, health literacy may also influence the reaction of vulnerable groups to technology. Social persuasion was the main way interventions sought to achieve better self-management. Efforts to engage patients by healthcare providers were lower than expected. Use of social networks or other eHealth mechanisms to link patients and provide opportunities for vicarious experience could be further explored in relation to vulnerable groups. Future research could also assess health and eHealth literacy and differentiate the specific needs for vulnerable groups when implementing health technologies.</description><subject>Case management</subject><subject>Chronic Disease - psychology</subject><subject>Chronic Disease - therapy</subject><subject>Chronic illnesses</subject><subject>Collaboration</subject><subject>Community</subject><subject>Diabetes</subject><subject>Electronics</subject><subject>Evidence-based medicine</subject><subject>General practice / Family practice</subject><subject>Health Literacy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internet</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Mental depression</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Primary Health Care - methods</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Rural areas</subject><subject>Self Efficacy</subject><subject>Self-Management</subject><subject>Smartphone</subject><subject>Smartphones</subject><subject>Social Networking</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Telemedicine</subject><subject>Telephone</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><subject>Vulnerable Populations</subject><issn>2044-6055</issn><issn>2044-6055</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>9YT</sourceid><sourceid>ACMMV</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkU1rFTEUhoMottT-AkECblw4NckkM4kLoZT6AQU3ug6ZzBknl0xyTTK3dOVfN733WqorszmB85yHc3gReknJBaVt925YNnELoWGE9g2hiir2BJ0ywnnTESGePvqfoPOcN6Q-LpQQ7Dk6aQkVklF-in5de7AlxeDsW7zEwXnAJoy4gIcZjC8zLjH6jKeY8G71AZIZKrM1xUEoGd-6ith5b8Cjy2AyvMcG57tcYKmUxQl2Dm732lSVLpfaDWWG7PIL9GwyPsP5sZ6h7x-vv119bm6-fvpydXnTDLxnpZHcwsA6ahmAshP0SkgydmaSwHvOZD8YazkTTNixG6ToqeWCWiHMpCrbtWfow8G7XYcFRlt3T8brbXKLSXc6Gqf_7gQ36x9xpztKFWeqCt4cBSn-XCEXvbhswXsTIK5ZM6J6odpeyoq-_gfdxDWFet6earmisq1Ue6BsijknmB6WoUTfZ6yPGev7jPUh4zr16vEdDzN_Eq3AxQGo0_9l_A166rX1</recordid><startdate>20180801</startdate><enddate>20180801</enddate><creator>Parker, Sharon</creator><creator>Prince, Amy</creator><creator>Thomas, Louise</creator><creator>Song, Hyun</creator><creator>Milosevic, Diana</creator><creator>Harris, Mark Fort</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group</general><scope>9YT</scope><scope>ACMMV</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180801</creationdate><title>Electronic, mobile and telehealth tools for vulnerable patients with chronic disease: a systematic review and realist synthesis</title><author>Parker, Sharon ; Prince, Amy ; Thomas, Louise ; Song, Hyun ; Milosevic, Diana ; Harris, Mark Fort</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b472t-84ceb261c2ee9cfe79580d6af8e474287bacc42525cd6b8571c451c55af979563</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Case management</topic><topic>Chronic Disease - psychology</topic><topic>Chronic Disease - therapy</topic><topic>Chronic illnesses</topic><topic>Collaboration</topic><topic>Community</topic><topic>Diabetes</topic><topic>Electronics</topic><topic>Evidence-based medicine</topic><topic>General practice / Family practice</topic><topic>Health Literacy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internet</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Mental depression</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Primary Health Care - methods</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Rural areas</topic><topic>Self Efficacy</topic><topic>Self-Management</topic><topic>Smartphone</topic><topic>Smartphones</topic><topic>Social Networking</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Telemedicine</topic><topic>Telephone</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><topic>Vulnerable Populations</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Parker, Sharon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prince, Amy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomas, Louise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Song, Hyun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Milosevic, Diana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harris, Mark Fort</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>IMPACT Study Group</creatorcontrib><collection>BMJ Open Access Journals</collection><collection>BMJ Journals:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BMJ open</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Parker, Sharon</au><au>Prince, Amy</au><au>Thomas, Louise</au><au>Song, Hyun</au><au>Milosevic, Diana</au><au>Harris, Mark Fort</au><aucorp>IMPACT Study Group</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Electronic, mobile and telehealth tools for vulnerable patients with chronic disease: a systematic review and realist synthesis</atitle><jtitle>BMJ open</jtitle><addtitle>BMJ Open</addtitle><date>2018-08-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>e019192</spage><epage>e019192</epage><pages>e019192-e019192</pages><issn>2044-6055</issn><eissn>2044-6055</eissn><abstract>ObjectivesThe objective of this review was to assess the benefit of using electronic, mobile and telehealth tools for vulnerable patients with chronic disease and explore the mechanisms by which these impact patient self-efficacy and self-management.DesignWe searched MEDLINE, all evidence-based medicine, CINAHL, Embase and PsychINFO covering the period 2009 to 2018 for electronic, mobile or telehealth interventions. Quality was assessed according to rigour and relevance. Those studies providing a richer description (‘thick’) were synthesised using a realist matrix.Setting and participantsStudies of any design conducted in community-based primary care involving adults with one or more diagnosed chronic health condition and vulnerability due to demographic, geographic, economic and/or cultural characteristics.ResultsEighteen trials were identified targeting a range of chronic conditions and vulnerabilities. The data provided limited insight into the mechanisms underpinning these interventions, most of which sought to persuade vulnerable patients into believing they could self-manage their conditions through improved symptom monitoring, education and support and goal setting. Patients were relatively passive in the interaction, and the level of patient response attributed to their intrinsic level of motivation. Health literacy, which may be confounded with motivation, was only measured in one study, and eHealth literacy was not assessed.ConclusionsResearch incorporating these tools with vulnerable groups is not comprehensive. Apart from intrinsic motivation, health literacy may also influence the reaction of vulnerable groups to technology. Social persuasion was the main way interventions sought to achieve better self-management. Efforts to engage patients by healthcare providers were lower than expected. Use of social networks or other eHealth mechanisms to link patients and provide opportunities for vicarious experience could be further explored in relation to vulnerable groups. Future research could also assess health and eHealth literacy and differentiate the specific needs for vulnerable groups when implementing health technologies.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</pub><pmid>30158214</pmid><doi>10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019192</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2044-6055
ispartof BMJ open, 2018-08, Vol.8 (8), p.e019192-e019192
issn 2044-6055
2044-6055
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6119429
source BMJ Open Access Journals; MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central Open Access; PubMed Central
subjects Case management
Chronic Disease - psychology
Chronic Disease - therapy
Chronic illnesses
Collaboration
Community
Diabetes
Electronics
Evidence-based medicine
General practice / Family practice
Health Literacy
Humans
Internet
Intervention
Mental depression
Patients
Primary care
Primary Health Care - methods
Public health
Rural areas
Self Efficacy
Self-Management
Smartphone
Smartphones
Social Networking
Systematic review
Telemedicine
Telephone
Tumors
Vulnerable Populations
title Electronic, mobile and telehealth tools for vulnerable patients with chronic disease: a systematic review and realist synthesis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T09%3A35%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Electronic,%20mobile%20and%20telehealth%20tools%20for%20vulnerable%20patients%20with%20chronic%20disease:%20a%20systematic%20review%20and%20realist%20synthesis&rft.jtitle=BMJ%20open&rft.au=Parker,%20Sharon&rft.aucorp=IMPACT%20Study%20Group&rft.date=2018-08-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=e019192&rft.epage=e019192&rft.pages=e019192-e019192&rft.issn=2044-6055&rft.eissn=2044-6055&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019192&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2097349183%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2097349183&rft_id=info:pmid/30158214&rfr_iscdi=true