ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Telehealth intervention has been proposed as a sustainable and innovative intervention approach to Parkinson's disease (PD) patients, but there are still conflicting results in the literature about its effect. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of telehealth intervention for PD patients. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched from the inception to June 2018 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies, without language restrictions. When feasible, data were statistically pooled for meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3. Otherwise, narrative summaries were used. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included. With respect to PD severity, compared with usual care, telehealth intervention was beneficial in lowering motor impairment of PD patients significantly (mean difference (MD) = -2.27, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -4.25 to -0.29, p = 0.02), rather than mental status (MD = -0.98, 95% CI -2.61 to 0.65, p = 0.24), activities of daily living (MD = -1.51, 95% CI -4.91 to 1.89, p = 0.38) and motor complications (MD = -0.36, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.59, p = 0.46). Telehealth intervention did not lead to significant reduction in quality of life (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.04, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.28, p = 0.76), depression (SMD = -0.12, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.13, p = 0.34), cognition (MD = 0.37, 95% CI -0.34 to 1.09, p = 0.31) and balance (MD = 0.09, 95% CI -2.49 to 2.66, p = 0.95). DISCUSSION: Telehealth intervention is an effective option for individuals with PD to improve their motor impairment. Further well-designed studies are warranted to confirm our findings.
Subject(s)
Parkinson Disease/therapy , Quality of Life , Telemedicine/methods , Activities of Daily Living , China , Depression/etiology , Depression/therapy , Humans , Parkinson Disease/complications , Parkinson Disease/psychology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Introduction Telehealth intervention has been proposed as an innovative intervention approach to breast cancer patients, but there are still conflicting results in the literature about its effect. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched from inception to 3 October 2016 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which assessed the effect of telehealth intervention versus usual care in breast cancer patients. No language restrictions were used. Standardized mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was pooled when needed. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted if necessary and feasible. Results Twenty RCTs with a total of 2190 participants were included into this meta-analysis. Compared with usual care, telehealth intervention was associated with higher quality of life (SMD = 0.60, 95% CI 0.18-1.01, p = 0.005) and self-efficacy (SMD = 0.59, 95% CI 0.19-0.98, p = 0.003), with less depression (SMD = -1.29, 95% CI -2.28 to -0.30, p = 0.01), distress (SMD = -0.25, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.10, p = 0.001) and perceived stress (SMD = -0.30, 95% CI, -0.59 to -0.02, p = 0.04). However, anxiety score did not differ significantly between the two groups (SMD = -0.09, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.04, p = 0.17). Discussion Telehealth intervention is superior to usual care in breast cancer patients for improved quality of life, higher self-efficacy and less depression, distress, and perceived stress. However, these results should be recognized cautiously due to between-study heterogeneity, indicating that further well-designed RCTs are warranted.
