mHealth-delivered educational interventions for people with heart failure showed no evidence of a difference in heart failure knowledge compared to usual care (MD 0.10).
Systematic Review (n=971)
Heart failure (n=971)
mHealth-delivered education interventions vs Usual care
Heart failure knowledge — MD 0.10 (-0.2 to 0.40), p=0.51
Effect estimate: MD 0.10 (95% CI -0.2 to 0.40)
p-value: p=0.51
BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a chronic disease with significant impact on quality of life and presents many challenges to those diagnosed with the condition, due to a seemingly complex daily regimen of self-care which includes medications, monitoring of weight and symptoms, identification of signs of deterioration and follow-up and interaction with multiple healthcare services. Education is vital for understanding the importance of this regimen, and adhering to it. Traditionally, education has been provided to people with heart failure in a face-to-face manner, either in a community or a hospital setting, using paper-based materials or video/DVD presentations. In an age of rapidly-evolving technology and uptake of smartphones and tablet devices, mHealth-based technology (defined by the World Health Organization as mobile and wireless technologies to achieve health objectives) is an innovative way to provide health education which has the benefit of being able to reach people who are unable or unwilling to access traditional heart failure education programmes and services. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and quantify the potential benefits and harms of mHealth-delivered education for people with heart failure. SEARCH METHODS: We performed an extensive search of bibliographic databases and registries (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, IEEE Xplore, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal), using terms to identify HF, education and mHealth. We searched all databases from their inception to October 2019 and imposed no restriction on language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies if they were conducted as a randomised controlled trial (RCT), involving adults (≥ 18 years) with a diagnosis of HF. We included trials comparing mHealth-delivered education such as internet and web-based education programmes for use on smartphones and tablets (including apps) and other mobile devices, SMS messages and social media-delivered education programmes, versus usual HF care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: statistic and assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: = 0%; 3 studies, 894 participants; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of the studies due to limitations in study design and execution, heterogeneity, wide confidence intervals and fewer than 500 participants in the analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that the use of mHealth-delivered educational interventions for people with HF shows no evidence of a difference in HF knowledge; uncertainty in the evidence for self-efficacy, self-care and health-related quality of life; and may result in little to no difference in HF-related hospitalisations. The identification of studies currently underway and those awaiting classification indicate that this is an area of research from which further evidence will emerge in the short and longer term.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Sabine Allida
University of Wollongong
Huiyun Du
Flinders University
Xiaoyue Xu
General / Preventive / Lipids
Cochrane library
Johns Hopkins University
University of Technology Sydney
Flinders University
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Allida et al. (Wed,) conducted a systematic review in Heart failure (n=971). mHealth-delivered education interventions vs. Usual care was evaluated on Heart failure knowledge (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.40, p=0.51). mHealth-delivered educational interventions for people with heart failure showed no evidence of a difference in heart failure knowledge compared to usual care (MD 0.10).
synapsesocial.com/papers/6a077e36b2d9a7d543079a5c — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd011845.pub2