Article (Scientific journals)
Digital Health Interventions among People Living with Frailty: A Scoping Review.
Linn, Nyan; GOETZINGER, Catherine Joëlle; Regnaux, Jean-Philippe et al.
2021In Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 22 (9), p. 1802 - 1812.e21
Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi Dataset
 

Files


Full Text
PIIS152586102100390X.pdf
Author postprint (2.73 MB)
Download

All documents in ORBilu are protected by a user license.

Send to



Details



Keywords :
Frailty; digital health; eHealth; mobile health; older population; telehealth; Diagnostic Tests, Routine; Humans; Research Design; Nursing (all); Health Policy; Geriatrics and Gerontology; General Medicine; General Nursing
Abstract :
[en] [en] OBJECTIVES: Digital health interventions (DHIs) are interesting resources to improve various health conditions. However, their use in the older and frail population is still sparse. We aimed to give an overview of DHI used in the frail older population. DESIGN: Scoping review with PRISMA guidelines based on Population, Concept, and Context. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We included original studies in English with DHI (concept) on people described as frail (population) in the clinical or community setting (context) and no limitation on date of publication. We searched 3 online databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science). MEASURES: We described DHI in terms of purpose, delivering, content and assessment. We also described frailty assessment and study design. RESULTS: We included 105 studies that fulfilled our eligibility criteria. The most frequently reported DHIs were with the purpose of monitoring (45; 43%), with a delivery method of sensor-based technologies (59; 56%), with a content of feedback to users (34; 32%), and for assessment of feasibility (57; 54%). Efficacy was reported in 31 (30%) studies and usability/feasibility in 57 (55%) studies. The most common study design was descriptive exploratory for new methodology or technology (24; 23%). There were 14 (13%) randomized controlled trials, with only 4 of 14 studies (29%) showing a low or moderate risk of bias. Frailty assessment using validated scales was reported in only 47 (45%) studies. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: There was much heterogeneity among frailty assessments, study designs, and evaluations of DHIs. There is now a strong need for more standardized approaches to assess frailty, well-structured randomized controlled trials, and proper evaluation and report. This work will contribute to the development of better DHIs in this vulnerable population.
Disciplines :
Public health, health care sciences & services
Author, co-author :
Linn, Nyan;  Department of Population Health, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, Luxembourg
GOETZINGER, Catherine Joëlle ;  University of Luxembourg
Regnaux, Jean-Philippe;  Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Santé Publique, La Plaine Saint-Denis, Paris, France
Schmitz, Susanne;  Competence Center for Methodology and Statistics, Department of Population Health, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, Luxembourg
Dessenne, Coralie;  Department of Population Health, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, Luxembourg
FAGHERAZZI, Guy ;  University of Luxembourg ; Deep Digital Phenotyping Research Unit, Department of Population Health, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, Luxembourg
Aguayo, Gloria A ;  Deep Digital Phenotyping Research Unit, Department of Population Health, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, Luxembourg. Electronic address: gloria.aguayo@lih.lu
External co-authors :
yes
Language :
English
Title :
Digital Health Interventions among People Living with Frailty: A Scoping Review.
Publication date :
September 2021
Journal title :
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
ISSN :
1525-8610
eISSN :
1538-9375
Publisher :
Elsevier Inc., United States
Volume :
22
Issue :
9
Pages :
1802 - 1812.e21
Peer reviewed :
Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi
Funding text :
The Luxembourg Institute of Health funded this study. The Lions Club Luxembourg supported a co-author (Catherine Goetzinger) with a doctoral grant. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Available on ORBilu :
since 12 December 2023

Statistics


Number of views
46 (0 by Unilu)
Number of downloads
36 (0 by Unilu)

Scopus citations®
 
32
Scopus citations®
without self-citations
32
OpenCitations
 
12
OpenAlex citations
 
49
WoS citations
 
31

publications
0
supporting
0
mentioning
0
contrasting
0
Smart Citations
0
0
0
0
Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

Bibliography


Similar publications



Contact ORBilu