MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040316091 · doi:10.2196/20359

Utilization Barriers and Medical Outcomes Commensurate With the Use of Telehealth Among Older Adults: Systematic Review

2020· review· en· W3040316091 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Clemens Scott Kruse, Joanna Fohn, Nakia Wilson, Evangelina Núñez Patlán, Stephanie Zipp, Michael Mileski

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelehealthCINAHLeHealthPsychological interventionMedicineMEDLINEmHealthTelecareTelemedicineSystematic reviewQuality of life (healthcare)Health careGerontologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Rising telehealth capabilities and improving access to older adults can aid in improving health outcomes and quality of life indicators. Telehealth is not being used ubiquitously at present. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to identify the barriers that prevent ubiquitous use of telehealth and the ways in which telehealth improves health outcomes and quality of life indicators for older adults. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Kruse protocol and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Reviewers queried the following four research databases: Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, and Embase (Science Direct). Reviewers analyzed 57 articles, performed a narrative analysis to identify themes, and identified barriers and reports of health outcomes and quality of life indicators found in the literature. RESULTS: Reviewers analyzed 57 studies across the following five interventions of telehealth: eHealth, mobile health (mHealth), telemonitoring, telecare (phone), and telehealth video calls, with a Cohen κ of 0.75. Reviewers identified 14 themes for barriers. The most common of which were technical literacy (25/144 occurrences, 17%), lack of desire (19/144 occurrences, 13%), and cost (11/144 occurrences, 8%). Reviewers identified 13 medical outcomes associated with telehealth interventions. The most common of which were decrease in psychological stress (21/118 occurrences, 18%), increase in autonomy (18/118 occurrences, 15%), and increase in cognitive ability (11/118 occurrences, 9%). Some articles did not report medical outcomes (18/57, 32%) and some did not report barriers (19/57, 33%). CONCLUSIONS: The literature suggests that the elimination of barriers could increase the prevalence of telehealth use by older adults. By increasing use of telehealth, proximity to care is no longer an issue for access, and thereby care can reach populations with chronic conditions and mobility restrictions. Future research should be conducted on methods for personalizing telehealth in older adults before implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020182162; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020182162. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/15490.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.115
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.115
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.009
Bibliometrics0.0110.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations283
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207