The Effect of Combining mHealth and Health Professional–Led Intervention for Improving Health-Related Outcomes in Chronic Diseases: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Chronic diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease are global health challenges, affecting millions of people worldwide. Traditional health care often falls short in chronic disease management. This has led to the exploration of innovative solutions, such as mobile health (mHealth) technologies. mHealth, which leverages mobile and wireless technologies, has the potential to transform health care delivery by providing continuous, accessible, and personalized care. However, the effectiveness of mHealth, particularly when integrated with traditional health care interventions delivered by professionals, warrants comprehensive investigation. Understanding the combined impact of mHealth and professional-led interventions is critical to maximizing the potential of mHealth to improve patient outcomes and adherence. Objective This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of combining mHealth and health professional–led intervention for improving health-related outcomes in chronic diseases Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis focused on randomized controlled trials. We searched Web of Science, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and CINAHL through July 17, 2023. The study targeted patients aged 18 years and older, experiencing at least 1 chronic condition. The interventions were a combination of mHealth and the use of a health care professional. The comparison groups consisted of participants receiving either general care and follow-up or those using mHealth devices without any health care professional involvement. The outcomes measured in this review included hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), quality of life (QoL), and physical activity. Results The study included 26 research papers, encompassing 7360 individuals. Meta-analysis was conducted for HbA1c, QoL, and physical activity. For HbA1c, short-term improvement was significant (standardized mean difference [SMD] –0.43; 95% CI –0.64 to –0.21; I2=69%) and medium term (SMD –0.49; 95% CI –0.49 to –0.09; I2=21%). However, in the long term, the improvement was not significant (SMD –0.23; 95% CI –0.49 to 0.03; I2=88%). For QoL, significant improvements were observed in the short term (SMD –0.23; 95% CI –0.42 to –0.05; I2=62%), and in the medium term (SMD –0.16; 95% CI –0.24 to –0.07; I2=0%). In the long term, however, the improvement was not significant (SMD –0.12; 95% CI –0.41 to 0.16; I2=71%). For physical activity, both subjective (questionnaire) and objective (number of steps) outcomes were analyzed. In the short term, subjective outcomes showed significant improvement (SMD 0.31; 95% CI 0.12-0.50; I2=0%), while objective outcomes did not (SMD 0.11; 95% CI –0.05 to 0.27; I2=0%). Medium- and long-term subjective outcomes showed no significant improvement. Meta-analysis for objective outcomes in the medium and long term was not possible due to insufficient studies. Conclusions This study confirmed short- and medium-term benefits of mHealth combined with professional interventions for HbA1c, QoL, and short-term physical activity, supporting effective chronic disease management.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,092 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,012 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».