Domains, Feasibility, Effectiveness, Cost, and Acceptability of Telehealth in Aging Care: Scoping Review of Systematic Reviews
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Aging is becoming a major global challenge. Compared with younger adults, the older population has greater health needs but faces inadequate access to appropriate, affordable, and high-quality health care. Telehealth can remove geographic and time boundaries, as well as enabling socially isolated and physically homebound people to access a wider range of care options. The impacts of different telehealth interventions in terms of their effectiveness, cost, and acceptability in aging care are still unclear. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review of systematic reviews aimed to provide an overview of the domains of telehealth implemented in aging care; synthesize evidence of telehealth's feasibility, effectiveness, cost benefits, and acceptability in the context of aging care; identify gaps in the literature; and determine the priorities for future research. METHODS: Guided by the methodological framework of the Joanna Briggs Institute, we reviewed systematic reviews concerning all types of telehealth interventions involving direct communication between older users and health care providers. In total, 5 major electronic databases, PubMed, Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO (EBSCO), were searched on September 16, 2021, and an updated search was performed on April 28, 2022, across the same databases as well as the first 10 pages of the Google search. RESULTS: A total of 29 systematic reviews, including 1 post hoc subanalysis of a previously published large Cochrane systematic review with meta-analysis, were included. Telehealth has been adopted in various domains in aging care, such as cardiovascular diseases, mental health, cognitive impairment, prefrailty and frailty, chronic diseases, and oral health, and it seems to be a promising, feasible, effective, cost-effective, and acceptable alternative to usual care in selected domains. However, it should be noted that the generalizability of the results might be limited, and further studies with larger sample sizes, more rigorous designs, adequate reporting, and more consistently defined outcomes and methodologies are needed. The factors affecting telehealth use among older adults have been categorized into individual, interpersonal, technological, system, and policy levels, which could help direct collaborative efforts toward improving the security, accessibility, and affordability of telehealth as well as better prepare the older population for digital inclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Although telehealth remains in its infancy and there is a lack of high-quality studies to rigorously prove the feasibility, effectiveness, cost benefit, and acceptability of telehealth, mounting evidence has indicated that it could play a promising complementary role in the care of the aging population.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,036 | 0,168 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,013 | 0,015 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,017 | 0,017 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».