Mobile technologies to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and management of care

Daniela C Gonçalves-Bradley, Ana Rita J Maria, Ignacio Ricci-Cabello, Gemma Villanueva, Marita S Fønhus, Claire Glenton, Simon Lewin, Nicholas Henschke, Brian S Buckley, Garrett L Mehl, Tigest Tamrat, Sasha Shepperd, Daniela C Gonçalves-Bradley, Ana Rita J Maria, Ignacio Ricci-Cabello, Gemma Villanueva, Marita S Fønhus, Claire Glenton, Simon Lewin, Nicholas Henschke, Brian S Buckley, Garrett L Mehl, Tigest Tamrat, Sasha Shepperd

Abstract

Background: The widespread use of mobile technologies can potentially expand the use of telemedicine approaches to facilitate communication between healthcare providers, this might increase access to specialist advice and improve patient health outcomes.

Objectives: To assess the effects of mobile technologies versus usual care for supporting communication and consultations between healthcare providers on healthcare providers' performance, acceptability and satisfaction, healthcare use, patient health outcomes, acceptability and satisfaction, costs, and technical difficulties.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and three other databases from 1 January 2000 to 22 July 2019. We searched clinical trials registries, checked references of relevant systematic reviews and included studies, and contacted topic experts.

Selection criteria: Randomised trials comparing mobile technologies to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and consultations compared with usual care.

Data collection and analysis: We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

Main results: We included 19 trials (5766 participants when reported), most were conducted in high-income countries. The most frequently used mobile technology was a mobile phone, often accompanied by training if it was used to transfer digital images. Trials recruited participants with different conditions, and interventions varied in delivery, components, and frequency of contact. We judged most trials to have high risk of performance bias, and approximately half had a high risk of detection, attrition, and reporting biases. Two studies reported data on technical problems, reporting few difficulties. Mobile technologies used by primary care providers to consult with hospital specialists We assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate to low. Mobile technologies: - probably make little or no difference to primary care providers following guidelines for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD; 1 trial, 47 general practices, 3004 participants); - probably reduce the time between presentation and management of individuals with skin conditions, people with symptoms requiring an ultrasound, or being referred for an appointment with a specialist after attending primary care (4 trials, 656 participants); - may reduce referrals and clinic visits among people with some skin conditions, and increase the likelihood of receiving retinopathy screening among people with diabetes, or an ultrasound in those referred with symptoms (9 trials, 4810 participants when reported); - probably make little or no difference to patient-reported quality of life and health-related quality of life (2 trials, 622 participants) or to clinician-assessed clinical recovery (2 trials, 769 participants) among individuals with skin conditions; - may make little or no difference to healthcare provider (2 trials, 378 participants) or participant acceptability and satisfaction (4 trials, 972 participants) when primary care providers consult with dermatologists; - may make little or no difference for total or expected costs per participant for adults with some skin conditions or CKD (6 trials, 5423 participants). Mobile technologies used by emergency physicians to consult with hospital specialists about people attending the emergency department We assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate. Mobile technologies: - probably slightly reduce the consultation time between emergency physicians and hospital specialists (median difference -12 minutes, 95% CI -19 to -7; 1 trial, 345 participants); - probably reduce participants' length of stay in the emergency department by a few minutes (median difference -30 minutes, 95% CI -37 to -25; 1 trial, 345 participants). We did not identify trials that reported on providers' adherence, participants' health status and well-being, healthcare provider and participant acceptability and satisfaction, or costs. Mobile technologies used by community health workers or home-care workers to consult with clinic staff We assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate to low. Mobile technologies: - probably make little or no difference in the number of outpatient clinic and community nurse consultations for participants with diabetes or older individuals treated with home enteral nutrition (2 trials, 370 participants) or hospitalisation of older individuals treated with home enteral nutrition (1 trial, 188 participants); - may lead to little or no difference in mortality among people living with HIV (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.22) or diabetes (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.12) (2 trials, 1152 participants); - may make little or no difference to participants' disease activity or health-related quality of life in participants with rheumatoid arthritis (1 trial, 85 participants); - probably make little or no difference for participant acceptability and satisfaction for participants with diabetes and participants with rheumatoid arthritis (2 trials, 178 participants). We did not identify any trials that reported on providers' adherence, time between presentation and management, healthcare provider acceptability and satisfaction, or costs.

Authors' conclusions: Our confidence in the effect estimates is limited. Interventions including a mobile technology component to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and management of care may reduce the time between presentation and management of the health condition when primary care providers or emergency physicians use them to consult with specialists, and may increase the likelihood of receiving a clinical examination among participants with diabetes and those who required an ultrasound. They may decrease the number of people attending primary care who are referred to secondary or tertiary care in some conditions, such as some skin conditions and CKD. There was little evidence of effects on participants' health status and well-being, satisfaction, or costs.

Conflict of interest statement

ARM: Consultancy from Infarmed ‐ national authority of medicines and health products. Health Technology Assessment Commission. Payment for development of education presentations from Portuguese Institute of Oncology ‐ Lisbon. BB: none known. CG: none known. DGB: "I was commissioned by the WHO to conduct this review." GM: owns stock in Apple Computer. GV: "Since October 2017 I have been employed by Cochrane Response, an evidence services unit operated by the Cochrane Collaboration and contracted by the WHO to produce this review." IRC: none known. MF: none known. NH: "Since June 2016 I have been employed by Cochrane Response, an evidence services unit operated by the Cochrane Collaboration and contracted by the WHO to produce this review". SL: "I am the Joint Co‐ordinating Editor for the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group. I am also a member of the WHO Executive Guideline Steering Group on maternal and perinatal health recommendations". SS: "I am the Joint Co‐ordinating Editor for the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group." TT: none known.

Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.

Figures

1
1
Flow diagram
2
2
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
3.2. Analysis
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3: Mobile technologies used by primary care providers to consult with a hospital‐based specialist compared to usual care: Healthcare use, Outcome 2: Referred for clinic follow‐up or clinical examination, 3 to 12 months follow‐up
3.3. Analysis
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3: Mobile technologies used by primary care providers to consult with a hospital‐based specialist compared to usual care: Healthcare use, Outcome 3: Referred for clinic follow‐up or clinical examination, 3 to 12 months follow‐up

References

References to studies included in this review Armstrong 2018 {published data only}

    1. Armstrong AW, Chambers CJ, Maverakis E, Cheng MY, Dunnick CA, Chren M-M, et al. Effectiveness of online vs in-person care for adults with psoriasis: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA Network Open 2018;1(6):e183062. [DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.3062]
    1. Young PM, Chen AY, Ford AR, Cheng MY, Lane CJ, Armstrong AW. Effects of online care on functional and psychological outcomes in patients with psoriasis: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 2019 May 30 [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.05.089]
Azogil‐López 2019 {published data only}
    1. Azogil-López LM, Pérez-Lázaro JJ, Ávila-Pecci P, Medrano-Sanchéz EM, Coronado-Vázquez MV. Effectiveness of a new model of telephone derivation shared between primary care and hospital care [Efectividad de un nuevo modelo de derivación telefónica compartida entre atención primaria e atención hospitalaria]. Atención Primaria 2019;51(5):278-84. [DOI: 10.1016/j.aprim.2018.02.006]
    1. Azogil-López LM, Pérez-Lázaro JJ, Medrano-Sanchéz EM, Goméz-Salgado J, Coronado-Vázquez V. DETELPROG study: Effectiveness of a new model of scheduled telephone referral from primary care to internal medicine. A randomised controlled study. Journal of Clinical Medicine 2019;8(5):688. [DOI: 10.3390/jcm8050688]
Byamba 2015 {published data only}
    1. Byamba K, Syed-Abdul S, García-Romero M, Huang C-W, Nergyi S, Nyamdorj A, et al. Mobile teledermatology for a prompter and more efficient dermatological care in rural Mongolia. British Journal of Dermatology 2015;173(1):265-7. [DOI: 10.1111/bjd.13607]
Chang 2011 {published data only}
    1. Chang LW, Kagaayi J, Arem H, Nakigozi G, Ssempijja V, Serwadda D, et al. Impact of a mHealth intervention for peer health workers on AIDS care in rural Uganda: a mixed methods evaluation of a cluster-randomized trial. AIDS Behavior 2011;15(8):1776-84. [DOI: 10.1007/s10461-011-9995-x]
    1. Chang LW, Kagaayi J, Nakigozi G, Packer AH, Serwadda D, Quinn TC, et al. Responding to the human resource crisis: Peer health workers, mobile phones, and HIV care in Rakai, Uganda. AIDS Patient Care and STDs 2008;22(3):173-4. [DOI: 10.1089/apc.2007.0234]
    1. Chang LW1, Kagaayi J, Nakigozi G, Serwada D, Quinn TC, Gray RH, et al. Cost analyses of peer health worker and mHealth support interventions for improving AIDS care in Rakai, Uganda. AIDS Care 2013;25(5):652-6. [DOI: 10.1080/09540121.2012.722600]
Davis 2003 {published data only}
    1. Davis RM, Fowler S, Bellis K, Pockl J, Al Pakalnis V, Woldorf A. Telemedicine improves eye examination rates in individuals with diabetes: a model for eye-care delivery in underserved communities. Diabetes Care 2003;26(8):2476.
    1. Davis RM, Pockl J, Bellis K. Improved diabetic eye care utilizing telemedicine: a randomized controlled trial. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 2003;44:166.
Eminović 2009 {published data only}
    1. Eminović N, De Keizer NF, Wyatt JC, Ter Riet G, Peek N, Van Weert HC, et al. Teledermatologic consultation and reduction in referrals to dermatologists: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Archives of Dermatology 2009;145(5):558-64. [DOI: 10.1001/archdermatol.2009.44]
    1. Eminović N, Dijkgraaf MG, Berghout RM, Prins AH, Bindels, PJ, De Keizer NF. A cost minimisation analysis in teledermatology: Model-based approach. BMC Health Services Research 2011;10:251. [DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-251]
Gulacti 2017 {published data only}
    1. Gulacti U, Lok U. Comparison of secure messaging application (WhatsApp) and standard telephone usage for consultations on length of stay in the ED. A prospective randomized controlled study. Applied Clinical Informatics 2017;8(3):742-53. [DOI: 10.4338/ACI-2017-04-RA-0064]
Iversen 2018 {published data only}
    1. Iversen MM, Espehaug B, Hausken MF, Graue M, Østbye T, Skeie S, et al. Telemedicine versus standard follow-up care for diabetes-related foot ulcers: Protocol for a cluster randomized controlled noninferiority trial (DiaFOTo). JMIR Research protocols 2016;5(3):e148. [DOI: 10.2196/resprot.5646]
    1. Kolltveit BH, Thorne S, Graue M, Gjengedal E, Iversen MM, Kirkevold M. Telemedicine follow-up facilitates more comprehensive diabetes foot ulcer care: a qualitative study in home-based and specialist health care. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2017;27(5-6):e1134-45. [DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14193]
    1. Smith-Strøm H, Igland J, Østbye T, Tell GS, Hausken MF4, Graue M, et al. The effect of telemedicine follow-up care on diabetes-related foot ulcers: a cluster-randomized controlled noninferiority trial. Diabetes Care 2018;5(3):e148. [DOI: 10.2196/resprot.5646]
    1. Smith-Strøm H, Iversen MM, Graue M, Skeie S, Kirkevold M. An integrated wound-care pathway, supported by telemedicine, and competent wound management: Essential in follow-up care of adults with diabetic foot ulcers. International Journal of Medical informatics 2016;64:59-66. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.06.020]
Liddy 2019a {published data only}
    1. Liddy C, Maranger J, Afkham A, Keely E. Ten steps to establishing an e-consultation service to improve access to specialist care. Telemedicine Journal and E-Health 2013;19(12):982-90. [DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2013.0056]
    1. Liddy C, Moroz I, Keely E, Taljaard M, Armstrong CD, Afkham A, et al. Understanding the impact of a multispecialty electronic consultation service on family physician referral rates to specialists: a randomized controlled trial using health administrative data. Trials 2019;20:348. [DOI: 10.1186/s13063-019-3393-5]
Mansberger 2015 {published data only}
    1. Mansberger SL, Gleitsmann K, Gardiner S, Sheppler C, Demirel S, Wooten K, et al. Comparing the effectiveness of telemedicine and traditional surveillance in providing diabetic retinopathy screening examinations: a randomized controlled trial. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health 2013;19(12):942-48. [DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2012.0313]
    1. Mansberger SL, Sheppler C, Barker G, Gardiner SK, Demirel S, Wooten K, et al. Long-term comparative effectiveness of telemedicine in providing diabetic retinopathy screening examinations: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophtalmology 2015;133(5):518-25. [DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.1]
Orlandoni 2016 {published data only}
    1. Orlandoni P, Jukic Peladic N, Spazzafumo L, Venturini C, Cola C, Sparvoli D, et al. Utility of video consultation to improve the outcomes of home enteral nutrition in a population of frail older patients. Geriatrics & Gerontology International 2016;16(6):762-7. [DOI: 10.1111/ggi.12551]
Pak 2007 {published data only}
    1. Pak H, Triplett CA, Lindquist JH, Grambow SC, Whited JD. Store-and-forward teledermatology results in similar clinical outcomes to conventional clinic-based care. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2007;13(1):26-30. [DOI: 10.1258/135763307779701185]
    1. Pak HS, Datta SK, Triplett CA, Lindquist JH, Grambow SC, Whited JD. Cost minimization analysis of a store-and-forward teledermatology consult system. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health 2009;15(2):160-5. [DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2008.0083]
Piette 2017 {published data only}
    1. Piette E, Nougairède M, Vuong V, Crickx B, Tran VT. Impact of a store-and-forward teledermatology intervention versus usual care on delay before beginning treatment: a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial in ambulatory care. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2017;23(8):725-32. [DOI: 10.1177/1357633X16663328]
Riordan 2015 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Rordan J, Ottenritter C, Sullivan K, DaSilva K, O'Connor D, Dayal A. MedLibs: a mobile application for facilitating emergency department consultation requests. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2015;66(4S):S75.
Sutherland 2009 {published data only}
    1. Sutherland JE, Sutphin HD, Rawlins F, Redican K, Burton J. A comparison of telesonography with standard ultrasound care in a rural Dominican clinic. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2009;15(4):191-5. [DOI: 10.1258/jtt.2009.080909]
Taylor‐Gjevre 2018 {published data only}
    1. Taylor-Gjevre R, Nair B, Bath B, Okpalauwaekwe U, Sharma M, Penz E, et al. Addressing rural and remote access disparities for patients with inflammatory arthritis through video-conferencing and innovative inter-professional care models. Musculoskeletal Care 2018;16(1):90-5. [DOI: 10.1002/msc.1215]
Van Gelder 2017 {published data only}
    1. Van Gelder VA, Scherpbier-de Haan ND, Van Berkel S, Akkermans RP, De Grauw IS, Adang EM, et al. Web-based consultation between general practitioners and nephrologists: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Family Practice 2017;34(4):430-6. [DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmw131]
Whited 2002 {published data only}
    1. Whited JD, Datta S, Hall RP, Foy ME, Marbrey LE, Grambow SC, et al. An economic analysis of a store and forward teledermatology consult system. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health 2003;9(4):351-60. [DOI: 10.1089/153056203772744671]
    1. Whited JD, Hall RP, Foy ME, Marbrey LE, Grambow SC, Dudley TK, et al. Patient and clinician satisfaction with a store-and-forward teledermatology consult system. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health 2004;10(4):422-31. [DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2004.10.422]
    1. Whited JD, Hall RP, Foy ME, Marbrey LE, Grambow SC, Dudley TK, et al. Teledermatology's impact on time to intervention among referrals to a dermatology consult service. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health 2002;8(3):313-21. [DOI: 10.1089/15305620260353207]
Whited 2013 {published data only}
    1. Datta SK, Warshaw EM, Edison KE, Kapur K, Thottapurathu L, Moritz TE, et al. Cost and utility analysis of a store-and-forward teledermatology referral system: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatology 2015;151(12):1323-9. [DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.2362]
    1. Whited JD, Warshaw EM, Edison KE, Kapur K, Thottapurathu L, Raju S, et al. Effect of store and forward teledermatology on quality of life: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA Dermatology 2013;149(5):584-91. [DOI: 10.1001/2013.jamadermatol.380]
    1. Whited JD, Warshaw EM, Kapur K, Edison KE, Thottapurathu L, Raju S, et al. Clinical course outcomes for store and forward teledermatology versus conventional consultation: a randomized trial. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2013;19(4):197-204. [DOI: 10.1177/1357633X13487116]
References to studies excluded from this review Ateudjieu 2014 {published data only}
    1. Ateudjieu J, Stoll B, Nguefack-Tsague G, Tchangou C, Genton B. Vaccines safety: effect of supervision or SMS on reporting rates of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) with meningitis vaccine (MenAfriVac™): a randomized controlled trial. Vaccine 2014;32(43):5662-8.
Atnafu 2017 {published data only}
    1. Atnafu A, Otto K, Herbst CH. The role of mHealth intervention on maternal and child health service delivery: findings from a randomized controlled field trial in rural Ethiopia. mHealth 2017;3:39.
Batista 2016 {published data only}
    1. Batista JdA, Furtado MV, Katz N, Agostinho MR, Neto BS, Harzheim E, et al. Telemedicine-supported transition of stable coronary artery disease patients from tertiary to primary health care facilities: protocol for a randomized non-inferiority trial. BMC Health Services Research 2016;16:227.
Bettinelli 2015 {published data only}
    1. Bettinelli M, Lei Y, Beane M, Mackey C, Liesching TN. Does robotic telerounding enhance nurse-physician collaboration satisfaction about care decisions? Telemedicine Journal and e-Health 2015;21(8):637-43. [DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2014.0162]
Burns 2016 {published data only}
    1. Burns CL, Kularatna S, Ward EC, Hill AJ, Byrnes J, Kenny LM. Cost analysis of a speech pathology synchronous telepractice service for patients with head and neck cancer. Head & Neck 2016;39(12):2470-80.
Buvik 2016 {published data only}
    1. Buvik A, Bugge E, Knutsen G, Småbrekke A, Wilsgaard T. Quality of care for remote orthopaedic consultations using telemedicine: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Services Research 2016;16:483.
Chiaravalloti 2017 {published data only}
    1. Chiaravalloti A, Schunck CH, Sørensen TF, Thestrup J, Rosengren P, Pellicano C, et al. PICASO: A personalised integrated care platform. Clinical and Translational Imaging 2017;5(1):S141.
Conlin 2006 {published data only}
    1. Conlin PR, Fisch BM, Cavallerano AA, Cavallerano JD, Bursell SE, Aiello LM. Nonmydriatic teleretinal imaging improves adherence to annual eye examinations in patients with diabetes. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 2006;43(6):733-40.
Da Silva 2018 {published data only}
    1. Da Silva R, Rados D, Dos Santos E, Katz N, Harzheim E, Polanczyk C, et al. Teleconsultation support patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia being discharged from specialized care: a randomized noninferiority study. Journal of Urology 2018;199(4):e686-7.
Ferrándiz 2017 {published data only}
    1. Ferrándiz L, Ojeda-Vila T, Corrales A, Martín-Gutiérrez FJ, Ruíz-de-Casas A, Galdeano R, et al. Impact of dermoscopy on an internet-based skin cancer triage system: interim results of a randomized study. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 2017;76(2):342-3.
    1. Ferrándiz L, Ojeda-Vila T, Corrales A, Martín-Gutiérrez FJ, Ruíz-de-Casas A, Galdeano R, et al. Internet-based skin cancer screening using clinical images alone or in conjunction with dermoscopic images: a randomized teledermoscopy trial. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 2017;76(4):676-82.
Golberstein 2017 {published data only}
    1. Golberstein E, Kolvenbach S, Carruthers H, Druss B, Goering P. Effects of electronic psychiatric consultations on primary care provider perceptions of mental health care: Survey results from a randomized evaluation. Healthcare 2017;S2213-0764(16):30173-7. [DOI: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2017.01.002]
Gong 2018 {published data only}
    1. Gong E, Gu W, Sun C, Turner EL, Zhou Y, Li z, et al. System-integrated technology-enabled model of care to improve the health of stroke patients in rural China: protocol for SINEMA—a cluster-randomized controlled trial. American Heart Journal 2019;207:27-39.
Haridy 2017 {published data only}
    1. Haridy J, Iyngkaran G, Tse E. An eHealth model of care for community hepatitis c management: The healthelink project. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2017;32:70-71.
Loane 2001 {published data only}
    1. Loane MA, Bloomer SE, Corbett R, Eedy DJ, Evans C, Hicks N, et al. A randomized controlled trial assessing telehealth economics of realtime teledermatology compared with conventional care: an urban versus rural perspective. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2001;7(2):108-18. [DOI: 10.1258/1357633011936246]
    1. Loane MA, Bloomer SE, Corbett R, Eedy DJ, Hicks N, Lotery HE, et al. A randomized controlled trial to assess the clinical effectiveness of both realtime and store-and-forward teledermatology compared with conventional care. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2000;6(Suppl. 1):S1-3.
    1. Wootton R, Bloomer SE, Corbett R, Eedy DJ, Hicks N, Lotery HE, et al. Multicentre randomised control trial comparing real time teledermatology with conventional outpatient dermatological care: societal cost-benefit analysis. BMJ 2000;320(7244):1252-6.
NCT02710799 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT02710799. Evaluation of the effects of teleconsultations on a endocrinology referral list. (first received 17 March 2016).
Nwando Olayiwola 2016 {published data only}
    1. Anderson D, Villagra V, Coman EN, Zlateva I, Hutchinson A, Villagra J, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of cardiology eConsults for Medicaid patients. American Journal of Managed Care 2018;24(1):e9-e16.
    1. Nwando Olayiwola J, Anderson D, Jepeal N, Aseltine R, Pickett C, Yan J, et al. Electronic consultations to improve the primary care-specialty care interface for cardiology in the medically underserved: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Annals of Family Medicine 2016;14(2):133-40. [DOI: 10.1370/afm.1869]
Oakley 2000 {published data only}
    1. Loane MA, Oakley A, Rademaker M, Bradford N, Fleischl P, Kerr P, et al. A cost-minimization analysis of the societal costs of realtime teledermatology compared with conventional care: results from a randomized controlled trial in New Zealand. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2001;7(4):233-8. [DOI: 10.1258/1357633011936453]
    1. Oakley AM, Kerr P, Duffill M, Rademaker M, Fleischl P, Bradford N, et al. Patient cost-benefits of realtime teledermatology: a comparison of data from Northern Ireland and New Zealand. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2000;6(2):97-101. [DOI: 10.1258/1357633001935112]
Owen 2019 {published data only}
    1. Owen RR, Woodward EN, Drummond KL, Deen TL, Oliver KA, Petersen NJ, et al. Using implementation facilitation to implement primary care mental health integration via clinical video telehealth in rural clinics: protocol for a hybrid type 2 cluster randomized stepped-wedge design. Implementation Science 2019;14(1):33.
Phillips 2019 {published data only}
    1. Phillips JL, Heneka N, Lovell M, Lam L, Davidson P, Boyle F, et al. A phase III wait-listed randomised controlled trial of novel targeted inter-professional clinical education intervention to improve cancer patients' reported pain outcomes (The Cancer Pain Assessment (CPAS) Trial): study protocol. Trials 2019;20(1):62.
Pryzbylo 2014 {published data only}
    1. Przybylo JA, Wang A, Loftus P, Evans KH, Chu I, Shieh L. Smarter hospital communication: Secure smartphone text messaging improves provider satisfaction and perception of efficacy, workflow. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2014;9(9):573-8. [DOI: 10.1002/jhm.2228]
Romero 2009 {published data only}
    1. Romero G, Sánchez P, García M, Cortina P, Vera E, Garrido JA. Randomized controlled trial comparing store-and-forward teledermatology alone and in combination with web-camera videoconferencing. Clinical and Experimental Dermatology 2010;35(3):311-7. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2230.2009.03503]
Wesarg 2010 {published data only}
    1. Wesarg T, Wasowski A, Skarzynski H, Ramos A, Falcon Gonzalez JC, Kyriafinis G, et al. Remote fitting in Nucleus cochlear implant recipients. Acta Oto-Laryngologica 2010;130(12):1379-88. [DOI: 10.3109/00016489.2010.492480]
References to ongoing studies ACTRN12617000389303 {published data only}
    1. ACTRN12617000389303. Establishing the role of teleconsulting in the care of chronic conditions in rural areas of the Southern District Health Board (SDHB): a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. (first received 10 March 2017).
ACTRN12618001007224 {published data only}
    1. ACTRN12618001007224. A prospective randomised controlled study of telehealth specialist palliative care consultations in rural and metropolitan settings and the impact on patient and carer clinical outcomes and quality-of-life. (first received 25 May 2018).
Done 2018 {published data only}
    1. Done N, Oh DH, Weinstock MA, Withed JD, Jackson GL, King HA, et al. VA Telederm study: protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial to compare access to care for a mobile app versus a workstation-based store-and-forward teledermatology process. BMJ Open 2018;8:e022218.
    1. NCT03241589. Teledermatology mobile apps. (first received 7 August 2017).
Gervès‐Pinquié 2017 {published data only}
    1. Ferrua M, Di Palma M, Lemare F, Fourcade A, Lalloué B, Daumas-Yatim F, et al. Impact of a cancer care coordination program based on health information technologies for patients treated by oral anticancer therapy: The CAPRI randomized trial. Annals of Oncology 2017;28(Suppl 5):mdx388.066.
    1. Gervès-Pinquié C, Daumas-Yatim F, Lalloué B, Girault A, Ferrua M, Fourcade A, et al. Impacts of a navigation program based on health information technology for patients receiving oral anticancer therapy: The CAPRI randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Services Research 2017;17(1):133.
    1. NCT02828462. Impact of a monitoring device for patients with cancer treated using oral therapeutics (CAPRI). (first received 11 July 2016).
Jeandidier 2018 {published data only}
    1. Jeandidier N, Chaillous L, Franc S, Benhamou PY, Schaepelynck P, Hanaire H, et al. DIABEO app software and telemedicine versus usual follow-up in the treatment of diabetic patients: protocol for the TELESAGE randomized controlled trial. JMIR Research Protocols 2018;7(4):e66.
    1. NCT02287532. Evaluation of the DIABEO system in poorly controlled DM1 or DM2 patients treated with a basal-bolus Insulin regimen (TELESAGE). (first received 10 November 2014).
Källander 2015 {published data only}
    1. Källander K, Strachan D, Soremekun S, Hill Z, Lingam R, Tibenderana J, et al. Evaluating the effect of innovative motivation and supervision approaches on community health worker performance and retention in Uganda and Mozambique: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2015;16:157. [DOI: 10.1186/s13063-015-0657-6]
Koch 2018 {published data only}
    1. DRKS00012944. Implementation of teledermatologic referrals into general practice: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. (first received 31 August 2017).
    1. Koch R, Polanc A, Haumann H, Kirtschig G, Martus P, Thies C, et al. Improving cooperation between general practitioners and dermatologists via telemedicine: study protocol of the cluster-randomized controlled TeleDerm study. Trials 19;1(583):10.1186/s13063-018-2955-2.
Nakayama 2016 {published data only}
    1. Nakayama M, Inoue R. Prospective randomized trial of telemedicine-based collaborativecare using a prefectural medical information network system. European Journal of Epidemiology 2016;31(Suppl. 1):S141.
NCT02821143 {published data only}
    1. NCT02821143. The impact of telemedicine to support palliative care resident in nursing home (TELESM). (first received 1 July 2016).
NCT02986256 {published data only}
    1. NCT02986256. Evaluation of the management of diabetic foot ulcers by telemedicine on the number of hospital days in diabetic patients (TELEPIED). (first received 8 December 2016).
NCT03137511 {published data only}
    1. NCT03137511. Optimizing Access to Care Through New Technologies: A randomized study evaluating the impact of telephone contact and the sending by the general practitioner of suspicious lesions melanoma photographs taken with a smartphone, on the time limit to the consultation with a dermatologist (OASE Melanome). (first received 2 May 2017).
NCT03559712 {published data only}
    1. NCT03559712. Effectiveness of collaborative tele-mental health services for ADHD in primary care: a randomized trial in Dubai (ECTSAP- Dubai Trial). (first received 18 June 2018).
NCT03662256 {published data only}
    1. NCT03662256. Reducing childhood hearing loss in rural Alaska through a preschool screening and referral process using mobile health and telemedicine. (first received 7 September 2018).
Stevanovic 2017 {published data only}
    1. NCT02617875. Telemedical support for prehospital emergency medical service (TEMS). (first received 1 December 2015).
    1. Stevanovic A, Beckers SK, Czaplik M, Bergrath S, Coburn M, Brokmann CB, et al. Telemedical support for prehospital Emergency Medical Service (TEMS trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2017;18(1):43. [DOI: 10.1186/s13063-017-1781-2]
Xu 2017 {published data only}
    1. Xu L, Fang WY, Zhu F, Zhang HG, Liu K. A coordinated PCP-Cardiologist Telemedicine Model (PCTM) in China's community hypertension care: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2017;18(1):236. [DOI: 10.1186/s13063-017-1970-z]
Additional references AAP 2015
    1. American Academy of Pediatrics Comittee on Pediatric Workforce. The use of telemedicine to address access and physician workforce shortages. Pediatrics 2015;136(1):202-9.
Aceto 2018
    1. Aceto G, Persico V, Pescapé A. The role of Information and Communication Technologies in healthcare: taxonomies, perspectives, and challenges. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 2018;107:125-54. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jnca.2018.02.008]
AeHIN 20017
    1. Asia eHealth Information Network. Getting to know the Network. (accessed 24 April 2020).
Agarwal 2016
    1. Agarwal S, LeFevre AE, Lee J, L'Engle K, Mehl G, Sinha C, et al, WHO mHealth Technical Evidence Review Group. Guidelines for reporting of health interventions using mobile phones: mobile health (mHealth) evidence reporting and assessment (mERA) checklist. BMJ 2016;352:i1174. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i1174]
Agboola 2016
    1. Agboola SO, Bates DW, Kvedar JC. Digital health and patient safety. JAMA 2016;315(16):1697-8.
AKDN 2019
    1. AKDN Digital Health Programme. (accessed 31 July 2019).
Arain 2010
    1. Arain M, Campbell MJ, Cooper CL, Lancaster GA. What is a pilot or feasibility study? A review of current practice and editorial policy. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2010;10:67.
Borenstein 2009
    1. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR. When does it make sense to perform a meta-analysis? In: Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2009.
Campbell 2000
    1. Campbell M , Grimshaw J , Steen N, for the Changing Professional Practice Europe Group (EU BIOMED II Concerted Action). Sample size calculations for cluster randomized trials. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 2000;5(1):12-6.
Campbell 2013
    1. Campbell J, Dussault G, Buchan J, Pozo-Martin F, Guerra Arias M, Leone C, et al. A Universal Truth: No Health Without a Workforce. Recife, Brazil: Third Global Forum on Human Resources for Health; 2013. Forum report. Geneva: Global Health Workforce & World Health Organization, 2013.
Coiera 2016
    1. Coeira E, Ash J, Berg M. The unintended consequences of Health Information Technology revisited. Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2016;2016:163-9. [DOI: 10.15265/IY-2016-014]
Covidence [Computer program]
    1. Veritas Health Innovation Covidence. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation, Version accessed 11 February 2020. Available at .
Craig 2008
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M, Medical Research Council Guidance. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008;337:a1655. [DOI: ]
Dala‐Ali 2011
    1. Dala-Ali BM, Lloyd MA, Al-Abed Y. The uses of the iPhone for surgeons. Surgeon 2011;9(1):44-8. [DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2010.07.014]
Deeks 2017
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG, editor(s), on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JP, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017), The Cochrane Collaboration, 2017. Available from .
Distiller [Computer program]
    1. DistillerSR. Ottawa, Canada: Evidence Partners, Version accessed prior to 1 January 2019. Available at .
EPOC 2017a
    1. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). Data collection form. EPOC resources for review authors, 2017. (accessed 31 August 2017).
EPOC 2017b
    1. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). Suggested risk of bias criteria for EPOC reviews. EPOC resources for review authors, 2017. (accessed 31 August 2017).
EPOC 2017c
    1. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). EPOC worksheets for preparing a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE. EPOC resources for review authors, 2017. (accessed 31 August 2017).
EPOC 2017d
    1. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). Reporting the effects of an intervention in EPOC reviews. EPOC Resources for review authors, 2017. (accessed 31 August 2017).
Free 2013
    1. Free C, Phillips G, Watson L, Galli L, Felix L, Edwards P, et al. The effectiveness of mobile-health technologies to improve health care service delivery processes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS Medicine 2013;10(1):e1001363. [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001363]
Gagnon 2016
    1. Gagnon MP, Ngangue P, Payne-Gagnon J, Desmartis M. m-Health adoption by healthcare professionals: a systematic review. JAMA 2016;23(1):212-20. [DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocv052]
Glenton 2019
    1. Glenton C, Akama E, Tamrat T. Factors influencing the acceptability, feasibility and implementation of interactive telemedicine: an overview of reviews. In: WHO Guideline: Recommendations on Digital Interventions for Health System Strengthening Web Supplement 2: Summary of Findings and GRADE Tables. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2019. [Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO]
Gonçalves‐Bradley 2018a
    1. Gonçalves-Bradley DC, Buckley BS, Fønhus MS, Glenton C, Henschke N, Lewin S, et al. Mobile-based technologies to support client to healthcare provider communication and management of care. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 1. Art. No: CD012928. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012928]
GRADEpro GDT [Computer program]
    1. McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime) GRADEpro GDT. Version accessed prior to 20 December 2017. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime), 2015.
Guyatt 2008
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al, GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336(7650):924-6.
Hasselberg 2014
    1. Hasselberg M, Beer N, Blom L, Wallis LA, Laflamme L. Image-based medical expert teleconsultation in acute care of injuries: a systematic review of effects on information accuracy, diagnostic validity, clinical outcome, and user satisfaction. PLOS One 2014;9(6):e98539. [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098539]
Higgins 2017
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JA, editor(s). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. in: Higgins JP, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2017. Available from .
Higgins 2019
    1. Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2019. Available from .
ITU 2019
    1. International Telecomunications Union. Measuring digital development: Facts and figures 2019. (accessed 27 April 2020).
Konrad 1999
    1. Konrad TR, Williams ES, Linzer M, McMurray J, Pathman DE, Gerrity M, et al. Measuring physician job satisfaction in a changing workplace and a challenging environment. Medical Care 1999;37(11):1174-82.
Kruse 2017
    1. Kruse CS, Krowski N, Rodriguez B, Tran L, Vela J, Brooks M. Telehealth and patient satisfaction: a systematic review and narrative analysis. BMJ Open 2017;7(8):e016242.
Kukutsch 2017
    1. Kukutsch NA, Argenziano G, Bergman W. The opinion of dermoscopy experts about teledermoscopy involving primary care physicians and dermatologists. JEADV 2017;31(10):e470-1.
Källander 2013
    1. Källander K, Tibenderana JK, Akpogheneta OJ, Strachan DL, Hill Z, Ten Asbroek AH, et al. Mobile health (mHealth) approaches and lessons for increased performance and retention of community health workers in low- and middle-income countries: A review. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2013;15(1):e17. [DOI: 10.2196/jmir.2130]
La Monica 1986
    1. La Monica E, Oberst MT, Madea AR, Wolf RM. Development of a patient satisfaction scale. Research in Nursing & Health 1986;9(1):43-50.
Liberati 2009
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLOS Medicine 2009;6(7):e1000100.
Liddy 2016
    1. Liddy C, Drosinis P, Keely E. Electronic consultation systems: worldwide prevalence and their impact on patient care - a systematic review. Family Practice 2016;33(3):274-85. [DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmw024]
Liddy 2019b
    1. Liddy C, Moroz I, Mihan A, Nawar N, Keely E. A systematic review of asynchronous, provider-to-provider, electronic consultation services to improve access to specialty care available worldwide. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health 2019;25(3):184-98. [DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2018.0005]
Mantel 1959
    1. Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1959;22(4):719-48.
Mars 2012
    1. Mars M. Building the capacity to build capacity in e-Health in Sub-Saharan Africa: the KwaZulu-Natal Experience. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health 2012;18(1):32-7.
McDowell 2006
    1. McDowell I. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. 3rd edition. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 2006.
MedPAC 2016
    1. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (USA). Telehealth Services and the Medicare Program. Report to the Congress: Medicare and the Health Care Delivery System. (accessed prior to 20 December 2017) 2016:227-60.
Mobasheri 2015
    1. Mobasheri MH, King D, Johnston M, Gautama S, Purkayastha S, Darzi A. The ownership and clinical use of smartphones by doctors and nurses in the UK: A multicentre survey study. BMJ Innovations 2015;1:174-81.
Morris 2006
    1. Morris NS, MacLean CD, Chew LD, Littenberg B. The Single Item Literacy Screener: Evaluation of a brief instrument to identify limited reading ability. BMC Family Practice 2006;7:21. [DOI: 10.1186/1471-2296-7-21]
NHS Commissioning Assembly 2015
    1. NHS Commissioning Assembly. Technology Enabled Care Services: Resource for Commissioners, 2015. (accessed prior to 20 December 2017).
Odendaal 2020
    1. Odendaal WA, Anstey Watkins J, Leon N, Goudge J, Griffiths F, Tomlinson M, et al. Health workers’ perceptions and experiences of using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2020, Issue 3. Art. No: CD011942. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011942.pub2]
OPHI 2017
    1. Alkire S, Robles G. Global Dimensional Povery Index 2017. Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative, ODID, 2017. Available from (accessed 13 October 2017).
RevMan 5.3 [Computer program]
    1. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Schünemann 2017
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JP, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Akl E, et al, on behalf of the Cochrane GRADEing Methods Group and the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. Chapter 11: Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the confidence in or quality of the evidence. In: Higgins JP, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2017. Available from .
SCTT 2017
    1. Scottish Centre for Telehealth & Telecare. Programmes. (accessed 13 October 2017).
Steinhubi 2013
    1. Steinhubi SR, Muse ED, Topol EJ. Can mobile health technologies transform health care? JAMA 2013;310(22):2395-6.
Sterne 2011
    1. Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2011;343:d4002. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d4002]
Wallace 2017
    1. Wallace BC, Noel-Storr A, Marshall IJ, Cohen AM, Smalheiser NR, Thomas J. Identifying reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) via a hybrid machine learning and crowdsourcing approach. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2017;24(6):1165-8.
WHO 2011
    1. World Health Organization Global Observatory for eHealth. Global Observatory for eHealth series - Volume 2. Telemedicine: Opportunities and developments in Member States. January 2011. (accessed 31 August 2017).
WHO 2016
    1. World Health Organization. Global Observatory for eHealth. Global diffusion of eHealth: Making universal health coverage achievable. Report of the third global survey on eHealth. 2016. (accessed 31 August 2017).
WHO 2018
    1. World Health Organization. Classification of Digital Health Interventions v1.0. WHO/RHR/19.06. (accessed 24 April 2020).
WHO 2019
    1. World Health Organization. WHO Guideline: Recommendations on Digital interventions for Health System Strengthening. 2019 (accessed 24 April 2020).
Wu 2016
    1. Wu Q, Zhao L, Ye X-C. Shortage of healthcare professionals in China. BMJ 2016;354:i4860.
References to other published versions of this review Gonçalves‐Bradley 2018b
    1. Gonçalves-Bradley DC, Buckley BS, Fønhus MS, Glenton C, Henschke N, Lewin S, et al. Mobile-based technologies to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and management of care. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 1. Art. No: CD012927. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012927]

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren