Telehealth Strategies for the Delivery of Maternal Health Care : A Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth strategies to supplement or replace in-person maternity care may affect maternal health outcomes. PURPOSE: To conduct a rapid review of the effectiveness and harms of telehealth strategies for maternal health care given the recent expansion of telehealth arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, and to produce an evidence map. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, and Scopus for English-language studies (January 2015 to April 2022). STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of maternal care telehealth strategies versus usual care. DATA EXTRACTION: Dual data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment of studies, with disagreements resolved through consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: 28 RCTs and 14 observational studies (n = 44 894) were included. Maternal telehealth interventions supplemented in-person care for most studies of mental health and diabetes during pregnancy, primarily resulting in similar, and sometimes better, clinical and patient-reported outcomes versus usual care. Supplementing in-person mental health care with phone- or web-based platforms or mobile applications resulted in similar or better mental health outcomes versus in-person care. A reduced-visit prenatal care schedule using telehealth to replace in-person general maternity care for low-risk pregnancies resulted in similar clinical outcomes and higher patient satisfaction versus usual care. Overall, telehealth strategies were heterogeneous and resulted in similar obstetric and patient satisfaction outcomes. Few studies addressed disparities, health equity, or harms. LIMITATIONS: Interventions varied, and evidence was inadequate for some clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Replacing or supplementing in-person maternal care with telehealth generally results in similar, and sometimes better, clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction compared with in-person care. The effect on access to care, health equity, and harms is unclear. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. (PROSPERO: CRD42021276347).

Masks for Prevention of Respiratory Virus Infections, Including SARS-CoV-2, in Health Care and Community Settings : A Living Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations on masks for preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vary. PURPOSE: To examine the effectiveness of N95, surgical, and cloth masks in community and health care settings for preventing respiratory virus infections, and effects of reuse or extended use of N95 masks. DATA SOURCES: Multiple electronic databases, including the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and medRxiv preprint server (2003 through 14 April 2020; surveillance through 2 June 2020), and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials of masks and risk for respiratory virus infection, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and observational studies of mask use and coronavirus infection risk were included. New evidence will be incorporated by using living review methods. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer abstracted data and assessed methodological limitations; a second reviewer provided verification. DATA SYNTHESIS: 39 studies (18 randomized controlled trials and 21 observational studies; 33 867 participants) were included. No study evaluated reuse or extended use of N95 masks. Evidence on SARS-CoV-2 was limited to 2 observational studies with serious limitations. Community mask use was possibly associated with decreased risk for SARS-CoV-1 infection in observational studies. In high- or moderate-risk health care settings, observational studies found that risk for infection with SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus probably decreased with mask use versus nonuse and possibly decreased with N95 versus surgical mask use. Randomized trials in community settings found possibly no difference between N95 versus surgical masks and probably no difference between surgical versus no mask in risk for influenza or influenza-like illness, but compliance was low. In health care settings, N95 and surgical masks were probably associated with similar risks for influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed viral infection; clinical respiratory illness had inconsistency. Bothersome symptoms were common. LIMITATIONS: There were few SARS-CoV-2 studies, observational studies have methodological limitations, and the review was done by using streamlined methods. CONCLUSION: Evidence on mask effectiveness for respiratory infection prevention is stronger in health care than community settings. N95 respirators might reduce SARS-CoV-1 risk versus surgical masks in health care settings, but applicability to SARS-CoV-2 is uncertain. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.