MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407946461 · doi:10.2196/58543

Features of Structured, One-to-One Videoconference Interventions That Actively Engage People in the Management of Their Chronic Conditions: Scoping Review

2025· article· en· W4407946461 on OpenAlexaff
Yu-Ting Chen, Michelle J. Lehman, Toni Van Denend, Jacqueline Kish, Yue Wu, Katharine Preissner, Matthew Plow, Tanya Packer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Internet Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsNSCAD UniversityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLTelehealthPsychological interventionThematic analysisMedicineMEDLINEBehavior change methodsTelemedicineMental healthVideoconferencingNursingPsychologyHealth careQualitative researchPsychiatryMultimediaComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A dramatic increase in the use of videoconferencing occurred as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including delivery of chronic disease management programs. With this increase, clients' openness to and confidence in receiving any type of telehealth care has dramatically improved. However, the rapidity of the response was accomplished with little time to learn from existing knowledge and research. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this scoping review was to identify features, barriers, and facilitators of synchronous videoconference interventions that actively engage clients in the management of chronic conditions. METHODS: Using scoping review methodology, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and 6 other databases were searched from 2003 onward. The included studies reported on structured, one-on-one, synchronous videoconferencing interventions that actively engaged adults in the management of their chronic conditions at home. Studies reporting assessment or routine care were excluded. Extracted text data were analyzed using thematic analysis and published taxonomies. RESULTS: The 33 included articles reported on 25 distinct programs. Most programs targeted people with neurological conditions (10/25, 40%) or cancer (7/25, 28%). Analysis using the Taxonomy of Every Day Self-Management Strategies and the Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy version 1 identified common program content and behavior change strategies. However, distinct differences were evident based on whether program objectives were to improve physical activity or function (7/25, 28%) or mental health (7/25, 28%). Incorporating healthy behaviors was addressed in all programs designed to improve physical activity or function, whereas only 14% (1/7) of the programs targeting mental health covered content about healthy lifestyles. Managing emotional distress and social interaction were commonly discussed in programs with objectives of improving mental health (6/25, 24% and 4/25, 16%, respectively) but not in programs aiming at physical function (2/25, 8% and 0%, respectively). In total, 13 types of behavior change strategies were identified in the 25 programs. The top 3 types of strategies applied in programs intent on improving physical activity or function were feedback and monitoring, goals and planning, and social support, in contrast to shaping knowledge, regulation, and identity in programs with the goal of improving mental health. The findings suggest that chronic condition interventions continue to neglect evidence that exercise and strong relationships improve both physical and mental health. Videoconference interventions were seen as feasible and acceptable to clients. Challenges were mostly technology related: clients' comfort, technology literacy, access to hardware and the internet, and technical breakdowns and issues. Only 15% (5/33) of the studies explicitly described compliance with health information or privacy protection regulations. CONCLUSIONS: Videoconferencing is a feasible and acceptable delivery format to engage clients in managing their conditions at home. Future program development could reduce siloed approaches by adding less used content and behavior change strategies. Addressing client privacy and technology issues should be priorities.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0200.024
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Internet ResearchSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207