MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033411417 · doi:10.12998/wjcc.v8.i11.2266

Utilising digital health to improve medication-related quality of care for hypertensive patients: An integrative literature review

2020· article· en· W3033411417 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kannikar Wechkunanukul, Daya Ram Parajuli, Mohammad Hamiduzzaman

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Clinical Cases · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionDigital healthScopusHealth careTelehealthMEDLINEmHealthBlood pressureFamily medicineTelemedicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hypertension or high blood pressure is considered as a significant contributor and risk factor to many serious conditions, approximately 1.13 billion people have hypertension globally. However, the integrated technologies can upscale health provisions and improve the effectiveness of the healthcare system. WHO has recommended that the digital health interventions (DHIs) and the Health System Challenges should be used in tandem in addressing health. AIM: To summarise the outcomes from a range of research which investigated the use of DHI to improve the medication-related quality of care (MRQOC) for hypertensive patients. METHODS: An integrative literature review was undertaken in October 2019 using the Medline, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Scopus databases for publications in English with no date limit. RESULTS: In total, 18433 participants were included in this review from 28 studies meeting the eligibility criteria. There were 19 DHI identified within eight countries: Australia, Canada, India, South Korea, Lebanon, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. The DHI were provided as community-based, clinical-based and home-based program through mobile phone, mobile health system, short message service, and telehealth, digital medicine, and online healthcare (web-based). The mean age of participants was 59 ranging from 42 to 81 years with an average mean systolic blood pressure of 143.3 mmHg at baseline, ranging from 129.0 mmHg to 159.0 mmHg. The proportion of male participants ranged from 13.9% to 92.0%. Eighteen interventions showed evidence of reduction in blood pressure and improvement of self-management in relation to medication adherence and blood pressure control. The reduction of systolic blood pressure ranged between 1.9 mmHg and 26.0 mmHg, with a mean of 10.8 mmHg. The digital health was found positively associated with the MRQOC for hypertensive patients such as improvement in medication adherence and medication management; better blood pressure control; maintaining follow-ups appointment and self-management; increasing access to healthcare particularly among patients living in rural area; and reducing adverse events. However, some interventions found no significant effect on hypertensive care. The follow up duration varied between 2 mo and 18 mo with an average attrition rate of 10.1%, ranging from 0.0% to 17.4%. CONCLUSION: Utilising digital health innovation for hypertensive care in different settings with tailored interventions positively impacted on MRQOC leading to an improvement of patient outcomes and their quality of life. Nevertheless, inconclusive findings were found in some interventions, and inconsistent outcomes between DHI were noted. A future research and evidence-based DHI for hypertension or chronic diseases should be developed through the evidence-to-decision framework and guidelines.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0140.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.157
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.394 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Clinical CasesSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207