School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden.
School of Health, Care and Social Welfare, Mälardalen University, Eskilstuna, Sweden.
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Oct 11;23(10):e27267. doi: 10.2196/27267.
GPS alarms aim to support users in independent activities. Previous systematic reviews have reported a lack of clear evidence of the effectiveness of GPS alarms for the health and welfare of users and their families and for social care provision. As GPS devices are currently being implemented in social care, it is important to investigate whether the evidence of their clinical effectiveness remains insufficient. Standardized evidence frameworks have been developed to ensure that new technologies are clinically effective and offer economic value. The frameworks for analyzing existing evidence of the clinical effectiveness of GPS devices can be used to identify the risks associated with their implementation and demonstrate key aspects of successful piloting or implementation.
The principal aim of this study is to provide an up-to-date systematic review of evidence based on existing studies of the effects of GPS alarms on health, welfare, and social provision in the care of older adults compared with non-GPS-based standard care. In addition, the study findings were assessed by using the evidence standards framework for digital health technologies (DHTs) established by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom.
This review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Primary studies published in peer-reviewed journals and gray literature from January 2005 to August 2020 were identified through searches in 13 databases and several sources of gray literature. Included studies had individuals (aged ≥50 years) who were receiving social care for older adults or for persons with dementia; used GPS devices as an intervention; were performed in Canada, the United States, European Union, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, South Korea, or Japan; and addressed quantitative outcomes related to health, welfare, and social care. The study findings were analyzed by using the NICE framework requirements for active monitoring DHTs.
Of the screened records, 1.6% (16/986) were included. Following the standards of the NICE framework, practice evidence was identified for the tier 1 categories Relevance to current pathways in health/social care system and Acceptability with users, and minimum evidence was identified for the tier 1 category Credibility with health, social care professionals. However, several evidence categories for tiers 1 and 2 could not be assessed, and no clear evidence demonstrating effectiveness could be identified. Thus, the evidence required for using DHTs to track patient location according to the NICE framework was insufficient.
Evidence of the beneficial effects of GPS alarms on the health and welfare of older adults and social care provision remains insufficient. This review illustrated the application of the NICE framework in analyses of evidence, demonstrated successful piloting and acceptability with users of GPS devices, and identified implications for future research.
GPS 警报旨在帮助用户独立活动。先前的系统评价报告表明,GPS 警报在用户及其家人的健康和福利以及社会护理方面的有效性缺乏明确证据,同时在为社会提供护理方面的有效性证据也不足。由于 GPS 设备目前正在社会护理中实施,因此有必要调查其临床有效性证据是否仍然不足。已经制定了标准化的证据框架,以确保新技术具有临床有效性并具有经济价值。用于分析 GPS 设备临床有效性现有证据的框架可用于识别与实施相关的风险,并证明成功试点或实施的关键方面。
本研究的主要目的是根据 2005 年 1 月至 2020 年 8 月期间在 13 个数据库和一些灰色文献来源中检索到的现有研究,对基于 GPS 警报的健康、福利和社会护理对老年人的影响进行最新的系统评价。此外,还使用了英国国家卫生与保健卓越研究所(NICE)为数字健康技术(DHT)制定的证据标准框架来评估研究结果。
本研究按照 PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)指南进行。通过在 13 个数据库和几个灰色文献来源中进行搜索,确定了发表在同行评议期刊和灰色文献中的初级研究。纳入的研究对象为(年龄≥50 岁)正在接受老年人或痴呆症患者社会护理的个体;将 GPS 设备作为干预措施;在加拿大、美国、欧盟、新加坡、澳大利亚、新西兰、中国香港、韩国或日本进行;并解决与健康、福利和社会护理相关的定量结果。使用 NICE 框架要求主动监测 DHT 的标准分析研究结果。
在筛选的记录中,有 1.6%(16/986)被纳入。根据 NICE 框架的标准,确定了与健康/社会护理系统当前途径相关的实用性证据( Relevance to current pathways in health/social care system)和用户可接受性证据(Acceptability with users),并确定了健康、社会护理专业人员可信度证据(Credibility with health, social care professionals)的最低证据。然而,有几个 1 级和 2 级的证据类别无法评估,也无法确定明确的有效性证据。因此,根据 NICE 框架,用于跟踪患者位置的 DHT 证据不足。
GPS 警报对老年人健康和福利以及社会护理的有益影响的证据仍然不足。本综述说明了 NICE 框架在证据分析中的应用,展示了 GPS 设备的试点和用户接受度,同时也为未来的研究提供了启示。