Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36441572›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2022

Evidence and User Considerations of Home Health Monitoring for Older Adults: Scoping Review.

Andrew Chan, Rachel Cohen, Katherine-Marie Robinson, Devvrat Bhardwaj, Geoffrey Gregson, Jeffrey W Jutai, Jason Millar, Adriana Ríos Rincón, Atena Roshan Fekr

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrew ChanFaculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2487-4357
Rachel CohenKITE Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1327-680X
Katherine-Marie RobinsonSchool of Engineering Design and Teaching Innovation, Faculty of Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3357-8012
Devvrat BhardwajDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Faculty of Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7787-4430
Geoffrey GregsonFaculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0481-2036
Jeffrey W JutaiInterdisciplinary School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7294-1323
Jason MillarSchool of Engineering Design and Teaching Innovation, Faculty of Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9537-2717
Adriana Ríos RincónFaculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9018-9761
Atena Roshan FekrKITE Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7658-520X
University of Ottawa · CAUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity Health Network · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHome health monitoring shows promise in improving health outcomes; however, navigating the literature remains challenging given the breadth of evidence. There is a need to summarize the effectiveness of monitoring across health domains and identify gaps in the literature. In addition, ethical and user-centered frameworks are important to maximize the acceptability of health monitoring technologies.

objectiveThis review aimed to summarize the clinical evidence on home-based health monitoring through a scoping review and outline ethical and user concerns and discuss the challenges of the current user-oriented conceptual frameworks.

methodsA total of 2 literature reviews were conducted. We conducted a scoping review of systematic reviews in Scopus, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL in July 2021. We included reviews examining the effectiveness of home-based health monitoring in older adults. The exclusion criteria included reviews with no clinical outcomes and lack of monitoring interventions (mobile health, telephone, video interventions, virtual reality, and robots). We conducted a quality assessment using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). We organized the outcomes by disease and summarized the type of outcomes as positive, inconclusive, or negative. Second, we conducted a literature review including both systematic reviews and original articles to identify ethical concerns and user-centered frameworks for smart home technology. The search was halted after saturation of the basic themes presented.

resultsThe scoping review found 822 systematic reviews, of which 94 (11%) were included and of those, 23 (24%) were of medium or high quality. Of these 23 studies, monitoring for heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease reduced exacerbations (4/7, 57%) and hospitalizations (5/6, 83%); improved hemoglobin A1c (1/2, 50%); improved safety for older adults at home and detected changing cognitive status (2/3, 66%) reviews; and improved physical activity, motor control in stroke, and pain in arthritis in (3/3, 100%) rehabilitation studies. The second literature review on ethics and user-centered frameworks found 19 papers focused on ethical concerns, with privacy (12/19, 63%), autonomy (12/19, 63%), and control (10/19, 53%) being the most common. An additional 7 user-centered frameworks were studied.

conclusionsHome health monitoring can improve health outcomes in heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes and increase physical activity, although review quality and consistency were limited. Long-term generalized monitoring has the least amount of evidence and requires further study. The concept of trade-offs between technology usefulness and acceptability is critical to consider, as older adults have a hierarchy of concerns. Implementing user-oriented frameworks can allow long-term and larger studies to be conducted to improve the evidence base for monitoring and increase the receptiveness of clinicians, policy makers, and end users.

Indexed as

clinical evidenceconcernsgerontechnologyhome health monitoringolder adultssmart homestelemonitoringuser-centered frameworks

Identifiers

PMID36441572
PMCPMC9745651
OpenAlexW4310156247

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.