Intervention and Evaluation of Mobile Health Technologies in Management of Patients Undergoing Chronic Dialysis: Scoping Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Studies have shown the effectiveness and user acceptance of mobile health (mHealth) technologies in managing patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, incorporating mHealth technology into the standard care of patients with CKD still faces many challenges. To our knowledge, there are no reviews on mHealth interventions and their assessments concerning the management of patients undergoing dialysis. OBJECTIVE This study provided a scoping review on existing apps and interventions of mHealth technologies in adult patients undergoing chronic dialysis and identified the gaps in patient outcome assessment of mHealth technologies in the literature. METHODS We systematically searched PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases, as well as gray literature sources. Two keywords, “mHealth” and “dialysis,” were combined to address the main concepts of the objectives. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) mHealth interventions, which are on a smartphone, tablet, or web-based portals that are accessible through mobile devices; and (2) adult patients (age ≥18 years) on chronic dialysis. Only English papers published from January 2008 to October 2018 were included. Studies with mHealth apps for other chronic conditions, based on e-consultation or videoconferencing, non-English publications, and review papers were excluded. RESULTS Of the 1054 papers identified, 22 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Most studies (n=20) were randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. These studies were carried out in 7 countries. The main purposes of these mHealth interventions were as follows: nutrition or dietary self-monitoring (n=7), remote biometric monitoring (n=7), web-based portal (n=4), self-monitoring of in-session dialysis-specific information (n=3), and self-monitoring of lifestyle or behavioral change (n=1). The outcomes of the 22 included studies were organized into five categories: (1) patient satisfaction and acceptance, (2) clinical effectiveness, (3) economic assessment, (4) health-related quality of life, and (5) impact on lifestyle or behavioral change. The mHealth interventions showed neutral to positive results in chronic dialysis patient management, reporting no to significant improvement of dialysis-specific measurements and some components of the overall quality of life assessment. Evaluation of these mHealth interventions consistently demonstrated evidence in patients’ satisfaction, high level of user acceptance, and reduced use of health resources and cost savings to health care services. However, there is a lack of studies evaluating safety, organizational, sociocultural, ethical, and legal aspects of mHealth technologies. Furthermore, a comprehensive cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis of adopting mHealth technologies was not found in the literature. CONCLUSIONS The gaps identified in this study will inform the creation of health policies and organizational support for mHealth implementation in patients undergoing dialysis. The findings of this review will inform the development of a comprehensive service model that utilizes mHealth technologies for home monitoring and self-management of patients undergoing chronic dialysis.
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 | 0.012 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".