RESUMEN
@#The prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) across the globe has reached epidemic proportions, with more than three quarters of NCD deaths now occurring in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).1 NCDs encompass a broad range of chronic conditions, which include cardiovascular diseases, cancers, chronic respiratory diseases, diabetes, and mental disorders.2 To mitigate the growing global NCD burden and its associated challenges, upscaling high-impact essential interventions for the prevention and control of NCDs has remained a priority, especially in low-resource settings. One such intervention is strengthening self-care strategies or self-management of individuals living with NCDs.3 In the past few decades, the self-management approach to NCD has proven to be a cost-effective strategy to improve a patient’s quality of life by reducing symptom severity and decreasing pain. This approach has also encouraged patients to become key decision makers in the treatment process.4 Self-management includes both technological (e.g. smartphone applications, telemonitoring systems, or wearable devices) and non-technological interventions (social support, educational materials, or in-person training seminars).5 Telemedicine has played several important roles in the whole spectrum of care for patients with NCD. These include promotion of healthy behaviors, prevention of risk factors, prompt recognition and initiation of treatment, disease monitoring and follow-up, rehabilitation, and palliation. Telemedicine not only increases access to health care but also improves the quality of health care especially in rural areas.6 7 The unique challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has limited patient access to health care, especially in geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas. This literature review aims to determine the effectiveness of telemedicine on clinical and psychosocial outcomes of adult patients diagnosed with NCDs. We conducted a literature search on PubMed, EBSCOhost, ProQuest, Google Scholar, and Gale using the search words “telemedicine,” “adult,” “non-communicable disease,” “self-management,” and “teleconsultation.” We filtered the results to only include randomized controlled trials (RCT). To narrow down the scope of this literature review, only previous studies that compared telemedicine and usual care (non-telemedicine) among adults with non-communicable diseases, and those that report clinical and psychosocial outcomes—i.e., symptom outcomes, laboratory outcomes, knowledge on disease, or behavior outcomes that pertain to self-management of disease—were assessed. We excluded studies if they were done among patients <18 years old, if they included telemedicine that supplemented rather than replaced the usual (face-to-face) care, if they were not able to report outcomes between groups, or if they did not meet the criteria of a RCT. Two reviewers independently reviewed the abstracts yielded from the search strategy and assessed them based on the set criteria. If neither reviewer was able to rule out an article based on the abstract, the full text was retrieved and assessed to determine inclusion into the study. After the final assessment, a total of 9 RCT reports were included in this review. The general characteristics and key findings of the 9 studies included in this literature review are summarized in Table 1. The included studies, published in various journals between 2014 and 2021, were carried out in eight countries—two studies were done in Australia, and one each in Bangladesh, India, Italy, USA, Germany, China, and the Netherlands. The studies enrolled patients who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) (n=3), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n=1), type 1 DM (n=1), congestive heart failure (n=1), stroke (n=1), osteoarthritis (n=1), and various non-specific chronic conditions, including type 2 DM, hypertension, coronary artery diseases, heart failure, chronic depression, and schizophrenia (n=1). The sample sizes of the studies included ranged from 29 to 10,815 participants. Follow-up periods ranged from 3 to 36 months. The telemedicine techniques that were used in the studies included mobile phone-based health interventions, telemedicine-based visits, and telephone-based health coaching. In general, most of the studies included in this review reported that telemedicine is as good as, if not better than, usual care approaches in achieving clinical and psychosocial outcomes.