Chapel B, Alexandre F, Heraud N, Ologeanu-Taddei R, Cases AS, Bughin F, Hayot M. Standardization of the assessment process within telerehabilitation in chronic diseases: a scoping meta-review.
BMC Health Serv Res 2022;
22:984. [PMID:
35918690 PMCID:
PMC9344755 DOI:
10.1186/s12913-022-08370-y]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2021] [Accepted: 07/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background
Telerehabilitation (TR) interventions are receiving increasing attention. They have been evaluated in various scientific areas through systematic reviews. However, there is a lack of data on how to standardize assessment and report on their domains to guide researchers across studies and bring together the best evidence to assess TR for chronic diseases.
Aims and objectives
The aim of this study was to identify domains of assessment in TR and to qualitatively and quantitatively analyze how and when they are examined to gain an overview of assessment in chronic disease.
Methods
A scoping meta-review was carried out on 9 databases and gray literature from 2009 to 2019. The keyword search strategy was based on "telerehabilitation", “evaluation", “chronic disease" and their synonyms. All articles were subjected to qualitative analysis using the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Core Model prior to further analysis and narrative synthesis.
Results
Among the 7412 identified articles, 80 studies met the inclusion criteria and addressed at least one of the noncommunicable diseases (NCD) categories of cardiovascular disease (cardiovascular accidents), cancer, chronic respiratory disease, diabetes, and obesity. Regarding the domains of assessment, the most frequently occurring were “social aspect” (n = 63, 79%) (e.g., effects on behavioral changes) and “clinical efficacy” (n = 53, 66%), and the least frequently occurring was “safety aspects” (n = 2, 3%). We also identified the phases of TR in which the assessment was conducted and found that it most commonly occurred in the pilot study and randomized trial phases and least commonly occurred in the design, pretest, and post-implementation phases.
Conclusions
Through the HTA model, this scoping meta-review highlighted 10 assessment domains which have not been studied with the same degree of interest in the recent literature. We showed that each of these assessment domains could appear at different phases of TR development and proposed a new cross-disciplinary and comprehensive method for assessing TR interventions. Future studies will benefit from approaches that leverage the best evidence regarding the assessment of TR, and it will be interesting to extend this assessment framework to other chronic diseases.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08370-y.
Collapse