The Effect of Telehealth Interventions on Function and Quality of Life for Older Adults with Pre-Frailty or Frailty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Telehealth interventions improve health outcomes by increasing access to care. We conducted a systematic review to synthesize evidence on the effect of telehealth interventions compared with no intervention or usual care for older adults with pre-frailty or frailty for physical function, quality of life (QOL), and frailty. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and SPORTDiscus. Two authors reviewed records and assessed risk of bias. A narrative synthesis of findings was conducted. When appropriate, the standard mean difference (SMD) was used to compare telehealth interventions with control conditions. We used GRADE to determine the certainty of the evidence. Twelve RCTs were included. Low certainty evidence highlighted positive effects for the function and mental component of QOL favoring telehealth interventions (SMD = 0.31, 95% CI = [0.15, 0.47]; and SMD = 0.43, 95% CI = [0.22, 0.64], respectively). Despite a small positive effect of telehealth interventions, insufficient, and low certainty evidence precludes making definitive recommendations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".