eHealth Research Group, Centre for Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 19;8(8):e71238. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071238. eCollection 2013.
Telehealthcare involves the use of information and communication technologies to deliver healthcare at a distance and to support patient self-management through remote monitoring and personalised feedback. It is timely to scrutinise the evidence regarding the benefits, risks and costs of telehealthcare.
Two reviewers searched for relevant systematic reviews published from January 1997 to November 2011 in: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, IndMed and PakMed. Reviewers undertook independent quality assessment of studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for systematic reviews. 1,782 review articles were identified, from which 80 systematic reviews were selected for inclusion. These covered a range of telehealthcare models involving both synchronous (live) and asynchronous (store-and-forward) interactions between provider and patients. Many studies showed no differences in outcomes between telehealthcare and usual care. Several reviews highlighted the large number of short-term (<12 months) feasibility studies with under 20 participants. Effects of telehealthcare on health service indicators were reported in several reviews, particularly reduced hospitalisations. The reported clinical effectiveness of telehealthcare interventions for patients with long-term conditions appeared to be greatest in those with more severe disease at high-risk of hospitalisation and death. The failure of many studies to adequately describe the intervention makes it difficult to disentangle the contributions of technological and human/organisational factors on the outcomes reported. Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of telehealthcare remains sparse. Patient safety considerations were absent from the evaluative telehealthcare literature.
Policymakers and planners need to be aware that investment in telehealthcare will not inevitably yield clinical or economic benefits. It is likely that the greatest gains will be achieved for patients at highest risk of serious outcomes. There is a need for longer-term studies in order to determine whether the benefits demonstrated in time limited trials are sustained.
远程医疗利用信息和通信技术在远程提供医疗服务,并通过远程监测和个性化反馈支持患者自我管理。及时审查远程医疗的益处、风险和成本的证据是很重要的。
两位审查员在以下数据库中搜索了 1997 年 1 月至 2011 年 11 月期间发表的相关系统评价:Cochrane 图书馆、MEDLINE、EMBASE、LILACS、IndMed 和 PakMed。审查员使用系统评价的批判性评价技能计划(CASP)工具对研究进行了独立的质量评估。从 1,782 篇综述文章中,选择了 80 篇系统综述进行纳入。这些综述涵盖了各种远程医疗模式,包括提供者和患者之间的同步(实时)和异步(存储转发)交互。许多研究表明,远程医疗和常规护理之间在结果上没有差异。有几个综述强调了大量短期(<12 个月)可行性研究,参与者不足 20 人。有几个综述报告了远程医疗对卫生服务指标的影响,特别是减少住院治疗。在对患有长期疾病的患者的远程医疗干预的临床有效性的报告中,在那些处于高住院和死亡风险、疾病更严重的患者中,效果似乎最大。许多研究未能充分描述干预措施,因此很难理清技术和人为/组织因素对报告结果的贡献。关于远程医疗成本效益的证据仍然很少。在评估远程医疗的文献中,没有考虑到患者安全问题。
政策制定者和规划者需要意识到,对远程医疗的投资不一定会带来临床或经济效益。最有可能从最高风险的患者中获得最大收益。需要进行更长期的研究,以确定在有限时间的试验中证明的益处是否能够持续。