MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202882962 · doi:10.2196/25251

Exploring Barriers to and Enablers of the Adoption of Information and Communication Technology for the Care of Older Adults With Chronic Diseases: Scoping Review

2021· article· en· W3202882962 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Aging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordseHealthPsychological interventionTelehealthMedicineTelemedicinemHealthPsycINFOInformation and Communications TechnologyMEDLINEHealth careScopusGerontologyFamily medicineNursingWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Information and communication technology (ICT) offers considerable potential for supporting older adults in managing their health, including chronic diseases. However, there are mixed opinions about the benefits and effectiveness of ICT interventions for older adults with chronic diseases. OBJECTIVE: We aim to map the use of ICT interventions in health care and identified barriers to and enablers of its use among older adults with chronic disease. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using 5 databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, and ProQuest) to identify eligible articles from January 2000 to July 2020. Publications incorporating the use of ICT interventions, otherwise known as eHealth, such as mobile health, telehealth and telemedicine, decision support systems, electronic health records, and remote monitoring in people aged ≥55 years with chronic diseases were included. We conducted a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats framework analysis to explore the implied enablers of and barriers to the use of ICT interventions. RESULTS: Of the 1149 identified articles, 31 (2.7%; n=4185 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Of the 31 articles, 5 (16%) mentioned the use of various eHealth interventions. A range of technologies was reported, including mobile health (8/31, 26%), telehealth (7/31, 23%), electronic health record (2/31, 6%), and mixed ICT interventions (14/31, 45%). Various chronic diseases affecting older adults were identified, including congestive heart failure (9/31, 29%), diabetes (7/31, 23%), chronic respiratory disease (6/31, 19%), and mental health disorders (8/31, 26%). ICT interventions were all designed to help people self-manage chronic diseases and demonstrated positive effects. However, patient-related and health care provider-related challenges, in integrating ICT interventions in routine practice, were identified. Barriers to using ICT interventions in older adults included knowledge gaps, a lack of willingness to adopt new skills, and reluctance to use technologies. Implementation challenges related to ICT interventions such as slow internet connectivity and lack of an appropriate reimbursement policy were reported. Advantages of using ICT interventions include their nonpharmacological nature, provision of health education, encouragement for continued physical activity, and maintenance of a healthy diet. Participants reported that the use of ICT was a fun and effective way of increasing their motivation and supporting self-management tasks. It gave them reassurance and peace of mind by promoting a sense of security and reducing anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: ICT interventions have the potential to support the care of older adults with chronic diseases. However, they have not been effectively integrated with routine health care. There is a need to improve awareness and education about ICT interventions among those who could benefit from them, including older adults, caregivers, and health care providers. More sustainable funding is required to promote the adoption of ICT interventions. We recommend involving clinicians and caregivers at the time of designing ICT interventions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.346 · 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