Background The COVID-19 pandemic has acted as a catalyst for the development and adoption of a broad range of remote monitoring technologies (RMTs) in health care delivery. It is important to demonstrate how these technologies were implemented during the early stages of this pandemic to identify their application and barriers to adoption, particularly among vulnerable populations. Objective The purpose of this knowledge synthesis was to present the range of RMTs used in delivering care to patients with COVID-19 and to identify perceived benefits of and barriers to their use. The review placed a special emphasis on health equity considerations. Methods A rapid review of published research was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE, and QxMD for records published from the inception of COVID-19 (December 2019) to July 6, 2020. Synthesis involved content analysis of reported benefits of and barriers to the use of RMTs when delivering health care to patients with COVID-19, in addition to health equity considerations. Results Of 491 records identified, 48 publications that described 35 distinct RMTs were included in this review. RMTs included use of existing technologies (eg, videoconferencing) and development of new ones that have COVID-19–specific applications. Content analysis of perceived benefits generated 34 distinct codes describing advantages of RMTs, mapped to 10 themes overall. Further, 52 distinct codes describing barriers to use of RMTs were mapped to 18 themes. Prominent themes associated with perceived benefits included a lower burden of care (eg, for hospitals, health care practitioners; 28 records), reduced infection risk (n=33), and support for vulnerable populations (n=14). Prominent themes reflecting barriers to use of RMTs included equity-related barriers (eg, affordability of technology for users, poor internet connectivity, poor health literacy; n=16), the need for quality “best practice” guidelines for use of RMTs in clinical care (n=12), and the need for additional resources to develop and support new technologies (n=11). Overall, 23 of 48 records commented on equity characteristics that stratify health opportunities and outcomes, including general characteristics that vary over time (eg, age, comorbidities; n=17), place of residence (n=11), and socioeconomic status (n=7). Conclusions Results of this rapid review highlight the breadth of RMTs being used to monitor and inform treatment of COVID-19, the potential benefits of using these technologies, and existing barriers to their use. Results can be used to prioritize further efforts in the implementation of RMTs (eg, developing “best practice” guidelines for use of RMTs and generating strategies to improve equitable access for marginalized populations).

No abstract

Suboptimal adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) remains common. Patient-centered tools are needed to comprehensively assess adherence barriers in HIV clinical practice. Thus, we conducted a research synthesis to produce a conceptual framework for a new patient-reported outcome measure (PRO) for use in routine HIV care in Canada and France. A PRO's conceptual framework graphically represents the concepts to be measured and the potential relationships between them. Towards ensuring the framework's relevance to the target populations' concerns, qualitative studies with HIV-positive adults on barriers to ART adherence in developed countries were synthesized with thematic analysis, attending to the cross-study prevalence and interrelationships of barrier themes. In March 2016, searches within Medline, PsychINFO, and Embase produced 5,284 records. Two reviewers determined the final sample (n = 41). Analysis generated three levels of ART adherence barrier themes. Twenty Level 2 themes and their component subthemes (Level 3) were organized into 6 higher-order themes (Level 1): Cognitive and emotional aspects (100% of studies contributing content -prevalence), Lifestyle factors (95%), Social and material context (95%), Characteristics of ART (90%), Health experience and state (73%), and Healthcare services and system (66%). As to interrelationships, study authors articulated relationships between all higher-order themes (Level 3). Linkages between Level 2 barrier themes showed great variability, from 21% to 95%. Overall, this synthesis contributes an exceptionally detailed conceptual framework and report of ART adherence barriers, applicable to a wide range of PLHIV. It suggests that a key to understanding many barriers is through their interconnections. It also identifies gaps in barrier research. Concerning the new PRO's development, comprehensiveness will need to be weighed against other concerns (e.g., respondent burden) and the provision of barrier-specific guidance for clinically addressing its scores seems essential.

The use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to provide added feedback to health providers is receiving interest as a means of improving clinical care and patient outcomes, and contributing to more patient-centered care. In human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), while PROs are used in research, their application in clinical practice has been limited despite their potential utility. PRO selection is an important consideration when contemplating their use. As past reviews of PROs in HIV have focused on particular areas (e.g. disability, satisfaction with care), a more comprehensive review could better inform on the available instruments and their scope. This article reviews HIV-specific PROs to produce an inventory and to identify the central concepts targeted over time. Seven databases were searched (HAPI, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Google Scholar), generating 14,794 records for evaluation. From these records, 117 HIV-specific PROs were identified and categorized based on a content analysis of their targeted concept: Health-Related Quality of Life (23; 20 %), ART and Adherence-Related Views and Experiences (19; 16 %), Healthcare-Related Views and Experiences (15; 13 %), Psychological Challenges (12; 10 %), Symptoms (12; 10 %), Psychological Resources (10; 9 %), HIV Self-Management and Self-Care (8; 7 %), HIV-Related Stigma (8; 7 %), Body and Facial Appearance (4; 3 %), Social Support (3; 3 %), Sexual and Reproductive Health (2; 2 %), and Disability (1; 1 %). This review highlights the variety and evolution of HIV-specific PROs, with the arrival of seven categories of PROs only after the advent of highly-active antiretroviral therapy. Our inventory also offers a useful resource. However, the interest of further HIV-specific PRO development should be explored in sexual health, which received little independent attention.