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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sojib Bin Zaman, Raihan Khan, Roger G. Evans, Amanda G. Thrift, Ralph Maddison, Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam

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.

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)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.183
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.183
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.007
Bibliometrics0.0210.021
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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

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

Citations123
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR AgingSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207