Implementation Science Perspectives on Implementing Telemedicine Interventions for Hypertension or Diabetes Management: Scoping Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hypertension and diabetes are becoming increasingly prevalent worldwide. Telemedicine is an accessible and cost-effective means of supporting hypertension and diabetes management, especially as the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of technological solutions for care. However, to date, no review has examined the contextual factors that influence the implementation of telemedicine interventions for hypertension or diabetes worldwide. OBJECTIVE We adopted a comprehensive implementation research perspective to synthesize the barriers to and facilitators of implementing telemedicine interventions for the management of hypertension, diabetes, or both. METHODS We performed a scoping review involving searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify studies published in English from 2017 to 2022 describing barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of telemedicine interventions for hypertension and diabetes management. The coding and synthesis of barriers and facilitators were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS Of the 17,687 records identified, 35 (0.2%) studies were included in our scoping review. We found that facilitators of and barriers to implementation were dispersed across the constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Barriers related to cost, patient needs and resources (eg, lack of consideration of language needs, culture, and rural residency), and personal attributes of patients (eg, demographics and priorities) were the most common. Facilitators related to the design and packaging of the intervention (eg, user-friendliness), patient needs and resources (eg, personalized information that leveraged existing strengths), implementation climate (eg, intervention embedded into existing infrastructure), knowledge of and beliefs about the intervention (eg, convenience of telemedicine), and other personal attributes (eg, technical literacy) were the most common. CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest that the successful implementation of telemedicine interventions for hypertension and diabetes requires comprehensive efforts at the planning, execution, engagement, and reflection and evaluation stages of intervention implementation to address challenges at the individual, interpersonal, organizational, and environmental levels.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.205 | 0.419 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".