TY - JOUR
T1 - Digital health interventions in palliative care
T2 - A systematic meta-review
AU - Finucane, Anne
AU - O'Donnell, Hannah
AU - Lugton, Jean
AU - Gibson-Watt, Tilly
AU - Swenson, Connie
AU - Pagliari, Claudia
PY - 2021/4/6
Y1 - 2021/4/6
N2 - Digital health interventions (DHIs) have the potential to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of palliative care but heterogeneity amongst existing systematic reviews presents a challenge for evidence synthesis. This meta-review applied a structured search of 10 databases from 2006 to 2020, revealing 21 relevant systematic reviews, encompassing 332 publications. Interventions delivered via videoconferencing (17%), electronic healthcare records (16%) and phone (13%) were most frequently described in studies within reviews. DHIs were typically used in palliative care for education (20%), symptom management (15%), decision-making (13%), information provision or management (13%), and communication (9%). Across all reviews, mostly positive impacts were reported on education, information-sharing, decision-making, communication, and costs. Impacts on quality of life and physical and psychological symptoms were inconclusive. Applying AMSTAR 2 criteria, most reviews were judged as low quality as they lacked a protocol or did not consider risk of bias, so findings need to be interpreted with caution.
AB - Digital health interventions (DHIs) have the potential to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of palliative care but heterogeneity amongst existing systematic reviews presents a challenge for evidence synthesis. This meta-review applied a structured search of 10 databases from 2006 to 2020, revealing 21 relevant systematic reviews, encompassing 332 publications. Interventions delivered via videoconferencing (17%), electronic healthcare records (16%) and phone (13%) were most frequently described in studies within reviews. DHIs were typically used in palliative care for education (20%), symptom management (15%), decision-making (13%), information provision or management (13%), and communication (9%). Across all reviews, mostly positive impacts were reported on education, information-sharing, decision-making, communication, and costs. Impacts on quality of life and physical and psychological symptoms were inconclusive. Applying AMSTAR 2 criteria, most reviews were judged as low quality as they lacked a protocol or did not consider risk of bias, so findings need to be interpreted with caution.
KW - eHealth
KW - palliative care
KW - end-of-life, innovation
KW - systematic review
KW - meta-review
U2 - 10.1038/s41746-021-00430-7
DO - 10.1038/s41746-021-00430-7
M3 - Article
SN - 2398-6352
VL - 64
JO - npj Digital Medicine
JF - npj Digital Medicine
ER -