Title |
Do telemedical interventions improve quality of life in patients with COPD? A systematic review
|
---|---|
Published in |
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, April 2016
|
DOI | 10.2147/copd.s96079 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Charlotte Suppli Ulrik, Thorbjørn Lomholt Gregersen, Allan Green, Ejvind Frausing, Thomas Ringbæk, Eva Brøndum |
Abstract |
Telehealth is an approach to disease management, which may hold the potential of improving some of the features associated with COPD, including positive impact on disease progression, and thus possibly limiting further reduction in quality of life (QoL). Our objective was, therefore, to summarize studies addressing the impact of telehealth on QoL in patients with COPD. Systematic review. A series of systematic searches were carried out using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov (last updated November 2015). A predefined search algorithm was utilized with the intention to capture all results related to COPD, QoL, and telehealth published since year 2000. Primary outcome was QoL, assessed by validated measures. Out of the 18 studies fulfilling the criteria for inclusion in this review, three studies found statistically significant improvements in QoL for patients allocated to telemedical interventions. However, all of the other included studies found no statistically significant differences between control and telemedical intervention groups in terms of QoL. Telehealth does not make a strong case for itself when exclusively looking at QoL as an outcome, since statistically significant improvements relative to control groups have been observed only in few of the available studies. Nonetheless, this does not only rule out the possibility that telehealth is superior to standard care with regard to other outcomes but also seems to call for more research, not least in large-scale controlled trials. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 6 | 15% |
United Kingdom | 5 | 12% |
Spain | 3 | 7% |
Mexico | 3 | 7% |
Grenada | 1 | 2% |
Colombia | 1 | 2% |
Honduras | 1 | 2% |
Brazil | 1 | 2% |
Germany | 1 | 2% |
Other | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 18 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 28 | 68% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 15% |
Scientists | 4 | 10% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
Sweden | 1 | <1% |
Canada | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 131 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 15% |
Student > Master | 19 | 14% |
Researcher | 15 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 14 | 10% |
Unspecified | 9 | 7% |
Other | 32 | 24% |
Unknown | 27 | 20% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 23% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 13% |
Social Sciences | 10 | 7% |
Unspecified | 9 | 7% |
Psychology | 7 | 5% |
Other | 27 | 20% |
Unknown | 35 | 26% |