MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392839190 · doi:10.2196/54244

Effects of Telemedicine on Informal Caregivers of Patients in Palliative Care: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4392839190 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaoyu Yang, Xueting Li, Shanshan Jiang, Xinying Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelemedicineCINAHLMedicineRandomized controlled trialPsycINFOMeta-analysisPsychological interventionMEDLINEPalliative careAnxietySystematic reviewHealth careFamily medicineNursingPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Telemedicine technology is a rapidly developing field that shows immense potential for improving medical services. In palliative care, informal caregivers assume the primary responsibility in patient care and often face challenges such as increased physical and mental stress and declining health. In such cases, telemedicine interventions can provide support and improve their health outcomes. However, research findings regarding the use of telemedicine among informal caregivers are controversial, and the efficacy of telemedicine remains unclear. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the impacts of telemedicine on the burden, anxiety, depression, and quality of life of informal caregivers of patients in palliative care. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, CBM, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP databases to identify relevant randomized controlled trials published from inception to March 2023. Two authors independently screened the studies and extracted the relevant information. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Intervention effects were estimated and sensitivity analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4, whereas 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated using R (version 4.3.2) and RStudio. Results: A total of 9 randomized controlled trials were included in this study. The meta-analysis indicated that telemedicine has reduced the caregiving burden (standardized mean differences [SMD] -0.49, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.27; P<.001; 95% PI -0.86 to -0.13) and anxiety (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.06; P=.009; 95% PI -0.98 to 0.39) of informal caregivers; however, it did not affect depression (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.05; P=.11; 95% PI -0.94 to 0.51) or quality of life (SMD 0.35, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.89; P=.21; 95% PI -2.15 to 2.85). Conclusions: Although telemedicine can alleviate the caregiving burden and anxiety of informal caregivers, it does not significantly reduce depression or improve their quality of life. Further high-quality, large-sample studies are needed to validate the effects of telemedicine. Furthermore, personalized intervention programs based on theoretical foundations are required to support caregivers.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.037
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations22
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207