Mobile and tablet apps, ubiquitous and pervasive computing, wearable computing and domotics for health.

Mobile and tablet apps, ubiquitous and pervasive computing, wearable computing and domotics for health.

The global spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak poses a public health threat and has affected people worldwide in various unprecedented ways, both personally and professionally. There is no question that the current global COVID-19 crisis, now more than ever, is underscoring the importance of leveraging digital approaches to optimize pediatric health care delivery in the era of this pandemic. In this perspective piece, we highlight some of the available digital approaches that have been and can continue to be used to streamline remote pediatric patient care in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic, including but not limited to telemedicine. JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting is currently publishing a COVID-19 special theme issue in which investigators can share their interim and final research data related to digital approaches to remote pediatric health care delivery in different settings. The COVID-19 pandemic has rapidly transformed health care systems worldwide, with significant variations and innovations in adaptation. There has been rapid expansion of the leveraging and optimization of digital approaches to health care delivery, particularly integrated telemedicine and virtual health. Digital approaches have played and will play major roles as invaluable and reliable resources to overcome restrictions and challenges imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic and to increase access to effective, accessible, and consumer-friendly care for more patients and families. However, a number of challenges remain to be addressed, and further research is needed. Optimizing digital approaches to health care delivery and integrating them into the public health response will be an ongoing process during the current COVID-19 outbreak and during other possible future pandemics. Regulatory changes are essential to support the safe and wide adoption of these approaches. Involving all relevant stakeholders in addressing current and future challenges as well as logistical, technological, and financial barriers will be key for success. Future studies should consider evaluating the following research areas related to telemedicine and other digital approaches: cost-effectiveness and return on investment; impact on quality of care; balance in use and number of visits needed for the management of both acute illness and chronic health conditions; system readiness for further adoption in other settings, such as inpatient services, subspecialist consultations, and rural areas; ongoing user-centered evaluations, with feedback from patients, families, and health care providers; strategies to optimize health equity and address disparities in access to care related to race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, immigration status, and rural communities; privacy and security concerns for protected health information with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)–secured programs; confidentiality issues for some specific populations, especially adolescents and those in need of mental health services; early detection of exposure to violence and child neglect; and integration of training into undergraduate and graduate medical education and subspecialty fellowships. Addressing these research areas is essential to understanding the benefits, sustainability, safety, and optimization strategies of telemedicine and other digital approaches as key parts of modern health care delivery. These efforts will inform long-term adoption of these approaches with expanded dissemination and implementation efforts.

Background: Telemedicine modalities, such as videoconferencing, are used by health care providers to remotely deliver health care to patients. Telemedicine use in pediatrics has increased in recent years. This has resulted in improved health care access, optimized disease management, progress in the monitoring of health conditions, and fewer exposures to patients with illnesses during pandemics (eg, the COVID-19 pandemic). Objective: We aimed to systematically evaluate the most recent evidence on the feasibility and accessibility of telemedicine services, patients’ and care providers’ satisfaction with these services, and treatment outcomes related to telemedicine service use among pediatric populations with different health conditions. Methods: Studies were obtained from the PubMed database on May 10, 2020. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. In this review, we included randomized controlled trials from the last 10 years that used a telemedicine approach as a study intervention or assessed telemedicine as a subspecialty of pediatric care. Titles and abstracts were independently screened based on the eligibility criteria. Afterward, full texts were retrieved and independently screened based on the eligibility criteria. A standardized form was used to extract the following data: publication title, first author’s name, publication year, participants’ characteristics, study design, the technology-based approach that was used, intervention characteristics, study goals, and study findings. Results: In total, 11 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. All studies were categorized as randomized controlled trials (8/11, 73%) or cluster randomized trials (3/11, 27%). The number of participants in each study ranged from 22 to 400. The health conditions that were assessed included obesity (3/11, 27%), asthma (2/11, 18%), mental health conditions (1/11, 9%), otitis media (1/11, 9%), skin conditions (1/11, 9%), type 1 diabetes (1/11, 9%), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (1/11, 9%), and cystic fibrosis–related pancreatic insufficiency (1/11). The telemedicine approaches that were used included patient and doctor videoconferencing visits (5/11, 45%), smartphone-based interventions (3/11, 27%), telephone counseling (2/11, 18%), and telemedicine-based screening visits (1/11, 9%). The telemedicine interventions in all included studies resulted in outcomes that were comparable to or better than the outcomes of control groups. These outcomes were related to symptom management, quality of life, satisfaction, medication adherence, visit completion rates, and disease progression. Conclusions: Although more research is needed, the evidence from this review suggests that telemedicine services for the general public and pediatric care are comparable to or better than in-person services. Patients, health care professionals, and caregivers may benefit from using both telemedicine services and traditional, in-person health care services. To maximize the potential of telemedicine, future research should focus on improving patients’ access to care, increasing the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine services, and eliminating barriers to telemedicine use.

Background: eHealth tools such as patient portals and personal health records, also known as patient-centered digital health records, can engage and empower individuals with chronic health conditions. Patients who are highly engaged in their care have improved disease knowledge, self-management skills, and clinical outcomes. Objective: We aimed to systematically review the effects of patient-centered digital health records on clinical and patient-reported outcomes, health care utilization, and satisfaction among patients with chronic conditions and to assess the feasibility and acceptability of their use. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases between January 2000 and December 2021. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Eligible studies were those evaluating digital health records intended for nonhospitalized adult or pediatric patients with a chronic condition. Patients with a high disease burden were a subgroup of interest. Primary outcomes included clinical and patient-reported health outcomes and health care utilization. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction, feasibility, and acceptability. Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools were used for quality assessment. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts. Associations between health record use and outcomes were categorized as beneficial, neutral or clinically nonrelevant, or undesired. Results: Of the 7716 unique publications examined, 81 (1%) met the eligibility criteria, with a total of 1,639,556 participants across all studies. The most commonly studied diseases included diabetes mellitus (37/81, 46%), cardiopulmonary conditions (21/81, 26%), and hematology-oncology conditions (14/81, 17%). One-third (24/81, 30%) of the studies were randomized controlled trials. Of the 81 studies that met the eligibility criteria, 16 (20%) were of high methodological quality. Reported outcomes varied across studies. The benefits of patient-centered digital health records were most frequently reported in the category health care utilization on the “use of recommended care services” (10/13, 77%), on the patient-reported outcomes “disease knowledge” (7/10, 70%), “patient engagement” (13/28, 56%), “treatment adherence” (10/18, 56%), and “self-management and self-efficacy” (10/19, 53%), and on the clinical outcome “laboratory parameters,” including HbA1c and low-density lipoprotein (LDL; 16/33, 48%). Beneficial effects on “health-related quality of life” were seen in only 27% (4/15) of studies. Patient satisfaction (28/30, 93%), feasibility (15/19, 97%), and acceptability (23/26, 88%) were positively evaluated. More beneficial effects were reported for digital health records that predominantly focus on active features. Beneficial effects were less frequently observed among patients with a high disease burden and among high-quality studies. No unfavorable effects were observed. Conclusions: The use of patient-centered digital health records in nonhospitalized individuals with chronic health conditions is potentially associated with considerable beneficial effects on health care utilization, treatment adherence, and self-management or self-efficacy. However, for firm conclusions, more studies of high methodological quality are required. Trial Registration: PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) CRD42020213285; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=213285