The Effect of Mobile Phone-Based Interventions on Blood Pressure in Stroke Patients: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Abstract

Aim: Mobile phone interventions have been used as a widespread and effective means of blood pressure control in recent years. This systematic review was conducted to determine the effect of mobile phone-based interventions on blood pressure in stroke patients. Method: In this systematic review, the literature search was conducted between November 1 and November 10, 2022, in the databases “Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library,” without any year limitation. Studies with inclusion and exclusion criteria according to the PICOS method were included in the review. Results: A total of 3086 patients who have had a stroke with a sample size ranging from 50–660, and 13 randomized controlled trials meeting the criteria for inclusion in the review were included. In seven studies included in the review, it was found that mobile phone-based intervention reduces blood pressure, while in six studies, it did not have an effect. Conclusion: The current studies are insufficient to explain the effect of mobile phone-based interventions on blood pressure control in stroke patients. It is recommended to conduct more randomized controlled trials with a high methodological quality that examine the effect of mobile phone-based interventions on blood pressure in patients who have had a stroke.

Mobile Technology–Based Interventions for Stroke Self-Management Support: Scoping Review

“…However, on an individual basis (per intervention), the alignment was less strong. The following sections further explain how this review extends previous reviews on poststroke mHealth [ 10 - 14 , 69 - 72 ] and telehealth [ 73 ] interventions in relation to the study objectives and interventions included.…”

“…This wide range of technologies resulted from our novel approach to defining mHealth. Previous reviews on poststroke mHealth interventions have defined mHealth either very narrowly, focusing on a few specific mobile devices or features (eg, mobile phones [ 72 ], wearable activity monitors [ 69 ], or mobile apps for phones [ 10 , 11 , 14 , 69 , 71 ] and tablets [ 10 , 11 , 14 , 70 , 71 ]), or very broadly, focusing on mHealth in general and including devices and features that may not be entirely mobile and wireless (eg, computer programs [ 10 , 12 , 71 ], telephone calls [ 12 ], and web-based applications [ 13 ]). Our review was interested in the literature between these 2 ends of the narrow-broad spectrum of mHealth definitions.…”

“…The results also revealed key conceptual variables missing from the literature, such as “emotional self-management” and “information about available resources.” Hence, the results suggest that future research should be more closely aligned with the theory and taxonomy of self-management support. Previous reviews on poststroke mHealth interventions [ 10 - 14 , 69 - 72 ] have not mapped the literature in this way. However, a review of poststroke telehealth interventions [ 73 ] used the PRISMS taxonomy [ 18 ] in a similar way, further validating the relevance of this approach.…”

“…These 7 functions, although together framed as facilitating self-management, are not inherently specific to self-management support interventions as they speak generally to what the intervention does , not specifically to what the intervention is about . Viewing mHealth functions in this way, as generic “verbs describing the behavior of the system” [ 26 ] or as action words that link technology capabilities with intervention components, has not been done in past reviews on poststroke mHealth interventions [ 10 - 14 , 69 - 72 ]. However, this approach to conceptualizing mHealth functions does align with other work in the broader field of mHealth [ 26 , 30 ].…”

Mobile Technology–Based Interventions for Stroke Self-Management Support: Scoping Review (Preprint)

“…These 7 functions, although together framed as facilitating self-management, are not inherently specific to self-management support interventions as they speak generally to what the intervention does, not specifically to what the intervention is about. Viewing mHealth functions in this way, as generic "verbs describing the behavior of the system" [26] or as action words that link technology capabilities with intervention components, has not been done in past reviews on poststroke mHealth interventions [10][11][12][13][14][69][70][71][72]. However, this approach to conceptualizing mHealth functions does align with other work in the broader field of mHealth [26,30].…”