A Meta-Analysis of eHealth Interventions on Ischaemic Heart Disease Health Outcomes.

Background: Electronic Health (eHealth) interventions as a secondary prevention tool to empower patients' health in decision-making and behaviour. Objective: With the growing body of evidence supporting the use of eHealth interventions, the intention is to conduct a meta-analysis on various health outcomes of eHealth interventions among ischaemic heart disease (IHD) patients. Methods: Based on PRISMA guidelines, eligible studies were searched through databases of Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, EBSCOHost, and SAGE (PROSPERO registration CRD42021290091). Inclusion criteria were English language and randomised controlled trials published between 2011 to 2021 exploring health outcomes that empower IHD patients with eHealth interventions. RevMan 5.4 was utilised for meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis, and risk of bias (RoB) assessment while GRADE software for generating findings of physical health outcomes. Non-physical health outcomes were analysed using SWiM (synthesis without meta-analysis) method. Results: This review included 10 studies, whereby, six studies with 895 participants' data were pooled for physical health outcomes. Overall, the RoB varied significantly across domains, with the majority was low risks, a substantial proportion of high risks and a sizeable proportion of unclear. With GRADE evidence of moderate to high quality, eHealth interventions improved low density lipoprotien (LDL) levels in IHD patients when compared to usual care after 12 months of interventions (SMD -0.26, 95% CI [-0.45, -0.06], I2 = 0%, p = 0.01). Significance appraisal in each domain of the non-physical health outcomes found significant findings for medication adherence, physical activity and dietary behaviour, while half of the non-significant findings were found for other behavioural outcomes, psychological and quality of life. Conclusions: Electronic Health interventions are found effective at lowering LDL cholesterol in long-term but benefits remain inconclusive for other physical and non-physical health outcomes for IHD patients. Integrating sustainable patient empowerment strategies with the advancement of eHealth interventions by utilising appropriate frameworks is recommended for future research.

Evidence of disease severity, cognitive and physical outcomes of dance interventions for persons with Parkinson's Disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Parkinson's Disease (PD) usually experience worsening of both motor and non-motor symptoms. Dancing has been postulated to help patients with Parkinson's via several mechanisms that lead to improved physical, cognitive and social functions. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted following Cochrane methodology and reported following the PRISMA guideline. Four databases (up to June 2021) were searched for RCTs comparing dance to standard or other physical therapy for improvements in disease severity, quality of life, cognitive and physical outcomes as well as adverse events in patients with PD. We synthesised data using RevMan and included certainty-of-evidence rating (GRADE) for major outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 20 RCTs (N = 723) articles that evaluated Tango, Ballroom, Irish, Waltz-Foxtrot, Folk, Turo, mixed dances and a PD-tailored dance were included. Dancers (versus non-dancers) had better motor experience (MDS-UPDRS 3) (MD -6.01, 95 % CI -9.97 to -3.84; n = 148; 5 RCTs) and improved balance (MiniBest Test) (MD 4.47, 95 % CI 2.29 to 6.66; n = 95; 3 RCTs), with no consistent differences on gait, agility and cognitive outcomes. Small samples and methodological limitations resulted in low-certainty-evidence across outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from a suggestion that dance intervention modestly reduced motor disease severity and improved certain aspects of balance, there is insufficient evidence on all other outcomes, such as agility and motor function, cognitive, mood and social outcomes, quality of life as well as adverse events including the risk of fall. As evidence is insufficient to inform practice, evidence of benefits on motor disease severity and balance needs to be considered in the context of user-perception of benefit versus harm and acceptability in the development of practice guideline recommendations.