Analyzing the Effectiveness of mHealth to Manage Diabetes Mellitus Among Adults Over 50: A Systematic Literature Review.

Purpose: A total of 537 million suffered from diabetes mellitus in 2021, and the aging of the population will not abate this number in the future. Diabetes predisposes people to ailments and doubles the risk of COVID-19 mortality. mHealth has shown promise to help manage diabetes. The aim of this review is to objectively analyze research from the last 2.5 years to assess effectiveness where mHealth has been used as an intervention to help manage diabetes in older patients. We also analyzed patient satisfaction, quality, and barriers to adoption of mHealth to manage diabetes. Patients and Methods: No human subjects were involved in this review. We queried four research databases for mHealth to manage diabetes in older adults. We conducted the review based on the Kruse Protocol for writing as systematic review and we reported our findings in accordance with PRISMA (2020). Results: Thirty research articles from 11 countries were analyzed. Five interventions of mHealth were identified. Of these mHealth Short Message service (SMS) helped change behavior and encouraged self-care. mHealth SMS coupled with telemedicine for coaching showed positive effects on weight loss, BMI, diet, exercise, HbA1C, disease awareness, blood pressure, cholesterol, medication adherence, and foot care. Conclusion: mHealth SMS coupled with telemedicine for coaching shows the greatest promise for educating, changing behavior, and realizing positive outcomes across a broad spectrum of health factors. The largest drawback is the cost of acquiring equipment and training users.

Facilitators and Barriers of COVID-19 Vaccine Promotion on Social Media in the United States: A Systematic Review.

Background and Objectives: Information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic has spread internationally through a variety of platforms, including social media. While efforts have been made to help reduce the spread of misinformation on social media, many platforms are still largely unregulated. The influence of social media use on vaccination promotion is not fully understood. This systematic review aims to identify facilitators and barriers associated with vaccine promotion through social media use. Materials and Methods: Reviewers analyzed 25 articles and identified common themes. Facilitators of vaccine promotion included an increase in the efforts of social media companies to reduce misinformation, the use of social media to spread information on public health and vaccine promotion, and the positive influence towards vaccinations of family and friends. Results and Conclusions: Identified barriers to vaccine promotion included the spread of misinformation, decreased vaccine acceptance among users of social media for COVID-19 related information due to polarization, and a lack of regulation on social media platforms. The results of this review provide insight for improving public health campaign promotion on social media and can help inform policy on social media regulation and misinformation prevention.

Protective and Non-Protective Factors of Mental Health Distress in the United States during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review.

Background and objectives: Health care organizations continue to respond to the COVID-19 global pandemic and an ongoing array of related mental health concerns. These pandemic-related challenges continue to be experienced by both the U.S. population and those abroad. Materials and methods: This systematic review queried three research databases to identify applicable studies related to protective and non-protective factors of mental health distress experienced during the pandemic within the United States. Results: Three primary factors were identified as protective factors, potentially helping to moderate the incidence of mental distress during the pandemic: demographics, personal support/self-care resources, and income/financial concerns. Researchers also identified these same three constructs of non-protective factors of mental health distress, as well as two additional variables: health/social status and general knowledge/government mistrust. Conclusions: This systematic review has identified protective and non-protective factors of mental health distress experienced in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic (to date) that can further assist medical providers in the U.S. and beyond as the pandemic and related mental health concerns continue at a global level.

Facilitators and Barriers to the Adoption of Telemedicine During the First Year of COVID-19: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The virulent and unpredictable nature of COVID-19 combined with a change in reimbursement mechanisms both forced and enabled the rapid adoption of telemedicine around the world. Thus, it is important to now assess the effects of this rapid adoption and to determine whether the barriers to such adoption are the same today as they were under prepandemic conditions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic literature review was to examine the research literature published during the COVID-19 pandemic to identify facilitators, barriers, and associated medical outcomes as a result of adopting telemedicine, and to determine if changes have occurred in the industry during this time. METHODS: The systematic review was performed in accordance with the Kruse protocol and the results are reported in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We analyzed 46 research articles from five continents published during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic that were retrieved from searches in four research databases: PubMed (MEDLINE), CINAHL, Science Direct, and Web of Science. RESULTS: Reviewers identified 25 facilitator themes and observations, 12 barrier themes and observations, and 14 results (compared to a control group) themes and observations. Overall, 22% of the articles analyzed reported strong satisfaction or satisfaction (zero reported a decline in satisfaction), 27% reported an improvement in administrative or efficiency results (as compared with a control group), 14% reported no statistically significant difference from the control group, and 40% and 10% reported an improvement or no statistically significant difference in medical outcomes using the telemedicine modality over the control group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic encouraged rapid adoption of telemedicine, which also encouraged practices to adopt the modality regardless of the challenges identified in previous research. Several barriers remain for health policymakers to address; however, health care administrators can feel confident in the modality as the evidence largely shows that it is safe, effective, and widely accepted.