Implementation and use of mHealth home telemonitoring in adults with acute COVID-19 infection: a scoping review protocol

Abstract

IntroductionmHealth refers to digital technologies that, via smartphones, mobile apps and specialised digital sensors, yield real-time assessments of patient’s health status. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, these technologies enable remote patient monitoring, with the benefit of timely recognition of disease progression to convalescence, deterioration or postacute sequelae. This should enable appropriate medical interventions and facilitate recovery. Various barriers, both at patient and technology levels, have been reported, hindering implementation and use of mHealth telemonitoring. As systematised and synthesised evidence in this area is lacking, we developed this protocol for a scoping review on mHealth home telemonitoring of acute COVID-19.Methods and analysisWe compiled a search strategy following the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) and PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendation for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science will be searched from 1 March 2020 to 31 August 2021. Following the title and abstract screening, we will identify, systematise and synthesise the available knowledge. Based on pilot searches, we preview three themes for descriptive evidence synthesis. The first theme relates to implementation and use of mHealth telemonitoring, including reported barriers. The second theme covers the interactions of the telemonitoring team within and between different levels of the healthcare system. The third theme addresses how this telemonitoring warrants the continuity of care, also during disease transition into deterioration or postacute sequelae.Ethics and disseminationThe studied evidence is in the public domain, therefore, no specific ethics approval is required. Evidence dissemination will be via peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and reports to the policy makers.

Understanding the Technological Landscape of Home Health Aides: Scoping Literature Review and a Landscape Analysis of Existing mHealth Apps

“…They found that although several wound care apps are available for nurses to use, there is a lack of rigorous and standardized evaluations of these apps, few clinical trials, and a paucity of information about which apps nurses actually use in real time [ 28 ]. A scoping review by Dauletbaev et al [ 29 ] highlighted the increased the use of mHealth telemonitoring for patient care since the COVID-19 pandemic, a trend we also saw in-home health. Although both reviews highlight the importance of technology for the health care workforce and patient care, neither review included HHAs.…”

Reflections on the Implementation of Wearable Vital Signs Monitors in a Vietnamese ICU

“…This necessitated adaptation of a system that was in an early phase of development that used devices designed for remote monitoring of relatively healthy ambulant people in the community (Nguyen Van Vinh Chau, 2022). While systems using similar equipment have been used for collecting data from individuals suffering from COVID in community settings (Dauletbaev et al, 2021), the re-purposing of this equipment for use in wards with very sick patients is much less common. Filho et al (Filho et al, 2021) describe a proof of principle deployment of a bespoke monitoring system designed for ICU settings on an ICU ward in Brazil.…”

Systemic Analysis of Barriers of High Quality of Care in Telemonitoring: Integrating the Seips Framework and Fault Tree Analysis

“…Need for digital wisdom (Kruse et al, 2020;Ruberti et al, 2021) ii. Lack of computer/digital skills (Dauletbaev et al, 2021;Middlemass et al, 2017) iii. Concern about ability to use telemonitoring for older patients and/or patients with less experience with technology (Barrett D, 2015;Wiegel et al, 2021) • Frustrations due to slow down of the device (Jalil et al, 2019) • Lack of internet access (Kato et al, 2015;Kruse et al, 2020;Ruberti et al, 2021) • Errors while measuring:…”

“…• Lack of digital literacy/skills (Barrett D, 2015;Dauletbaev et al, 2021;Kruse et al, 2020;Middlemass et al, 2017;Ruberti et al, 2021;Wiegel et al, 2021). This barrier has been also mentioned as an impactful factor by Kruse et al (2020).…”