Qualitative evidence synthesis informing our understanding of people's perceptions and experiences of targeted digital communication.
Health communication is an area where changing technologies, particularly digital technologies, have a growing role to play in delivering and exchanging health information between individuals, communities, health systems, and governments.[1] Such innovation has the potential to strengthen health systems and services, with substantial investments in digital health already taking place, particularly in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Communication using mobile phones is an important way of contacting individual people and the public more generally to deliver and exchange health information. Such technologies are used increasingly in this capacity, but poor planning and short‐term projects may be limiting their potential for health improvement. The assumption that mobile devices will solve problems that other forms of communication have not is also prevalent. In this context, understanding people's views and experiences may lead to firmer knowledge on which to build better programs. A qualitative evidence synthesis by Heather Ames and colleagues on clients' perceptions and experiences of targeted digital communication focuses on a particular type of messaging – targeted messages from health services delivered to particular group(s) via mobile devices, in this case looking at communicating with pregnant women and parents of young children, and with adults and teenagers about sexual health and family planning.[2] These areas of reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health (RMNCAH) are where important gains have been made worldwide, but there remains room for improvement. Ames and colleagues sought to examine and understand people's perceptions and experiences of using digital targeted client communication. This might include communication in different formats and with a range of purposes related to RMNCAH – for example, receiving text message reminders to take medicines (e.g. HIV medicines) or go to appointments (such as childhood vaccination appointments), or phone calls offering information or education (such as about breastfeeding or childhood illnesses), support (e.g. providing encouragement to change behaviours) or advice (such as advising about local healthcare services). These communication strategies have the potential to improve health outcomes by communicating with people or by supporting behaviour change. However, changing people's health behaviours to a significant and meaningful degree is notoriously challenging and seldom very effective across the board. There are a multitude of systematic reviews of interventions aiming to change behaviours of both patients and providers, with the overall objective of improving health outcomes – many of which show little or no average effects across groups of people.[3] This evidence synthesis is therefore important as it may help to understand why communicating with people around their health might (or might not) change behaviours and improve consequent health outcomes. By examining the experiences and perspectives of those receiving the interventions, this qualitative evidence synthesis allows us to better understand the interventions' acceptability and usefulness, barriers to their uptake, and factors to be considered when planning implementation. The synthesis looked at 35 studies from countries around the world, focussing on communication related to RMNCAH. Of the 35 studies, 16 were from high‐income countries, mainly the United States, and 19 were from low‐ or middle‐income countries, mainly African countries. Many of the studies presented hypothetical scenarios. The findings from the synthesis are mixed and give us a more nuanced picture of the role of targeted digital communication. People receiving targeted digital communications from health services often liked and valued these contacts, feeling supported and connected by them. However, some also reported problems with the use of these technologies, which may represent barriers to their use. These included practical or technical barriers like poor network or Internet access, as well as cost, language, technical literacy, reading or issues around confidentiality, especially where personal health conditions were involved. Access to mobile phones may also be a barrier, particularly for women and adolescents who may have to share or borrow a phone or who have access controlled by others. In such situations it may be difficult to receive communications or to maintain privacy of content. The synthesis also shows that people's experiences of these interventions are influenced by factors such as the timing of messages, their frequency and content, and their trust in the sender. Identifying key features of such communications by the people who use them might therefore help to inform future choices about how and when such messaging is used. The authors used their knowledge from 25 separate findings to list ten implications for practice. This section of the review is hugely valuable, making a practical contribution to assist governments and public health agencies wishing to develop or improve their delivery of digital health. The implications serve as a list of points to consider, including issues of access (seven different aspects are considered), privacy and confidentiality, reliability, credibility and trust, and responsiveness to the needs and preferences of users. In this way, qualitative evidence is building a picture of how to better communicate with people about health. For example, an earlier 2017 Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis by Ames, Glenton and Lewin on parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination provides ample evidence that may help program managers to deliver or plan communication interventions in ways that are responsive to and acceptable to parents.[4] The qualitative synthesis method, therefore, puts a spotlight on how people's experiences of health and health care in the context of their lives may lead to the design of better interventions, as well as to experimental studies which take more account of the diversity that exists in people's attitudes and decision‐making experiences.[5] In the case of this qualitative evidence synthesis by Ames and colleagues, the method pulled together a substantial body of research (35 data‐rich studies were sampled from 48 studies identified, with the high‐to‐moderate confidence in the evidence for 13 of the synthesized findings). The evidence from this review can inform the development of interventions, and the design of trials and their implementation. While waiting for such new trials or trial evidence on effects to emerge, decision‐makers can build their programs on the highly informative base developed by this review. This qualitative evidence synthesis, alongside other reviews, has informed development by the World Health Organization of its first guideline for using digital technologies for health systems strengthening,[1, 6] part of a comprehensive program of work to better understand and support implementation of such new technologies.
Ryan R
，Hill S
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.
About 20-30% of older adults (≥ 65 years old) experience one or more falls each year, and falls are associated with substantial burden to the health care system, individuals, and families from resulting injuries, fractures, and reduced functioning and quality of life. Many interventions for preventing falls have been studied, and their effectiveness, factors relevant to their implementation, and patient preferences may determine which interventions to use in primary care. The aim of this set of reviews was to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) on fall prevention interventions. We undertook three systematic reviews to address questions about the following: (i) the benefits and harms of interventions, (ii) how patients weigh the potential outcomes (outcome valuation), and (iii) patient preferences for different types of interventions, and their attributes, shown to offer benefit (intervention preferences).
We searched four databases for benefits and harms (MEDLINE, Embase, AgeLine, CENTRAL, to August 25, 2023) and three for outcome valuation and intervention preferences (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, to June 9, 2023). For benefits and harms, we relied heavily on a previous review for studies published until 2016. We also searched trial registries, references of included studies, and recent reviews. Two reviewers independently screened studies. The population of interest was community-dwelling adults ≥ 65 years old. We did not limit eligibility by participant fall history. The task force rated several outcomes, decided on their eligibility, and provided input on the effect thresholds to apply for each outcome (fallers, falls, injurious fallers, fractures, hip fractures, functional status, health-related quality of life, long-term care admissions, adverse effects, serious adverse effects). For benefits and harms, we included a broad range of non-pharmacological interventions relevant to primary care. Although usual care was the main comparator of interest, we included studies comparing interventions head-to-head and conducted a network meta-analysis (NMAs) for each outcome, enabling analysis of interventions lacking direct comparisons to usual care. For benefits and harms, we included randomized controlled trials with a minimum 3-month follow-up and reporting on one of our fall outcomes (fallers, falls, injurious fallers); for the other questions, we preferred quantitative data but considered qualitative findings to fill gaps in evidence. No date limits were applied for benefits and harms, whereas for outcome valuation and intervention preferences we included studies published in 2000 or later. All data were extracted by one trained reviewer and verified for accuracy and completeness. For benefits and harms, we relied on the previous review team's risk-of-bias assessments for benefit outcomes, but otherwise, two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias (within and across study). For the other questions, one reviewer verified another's assessments. Consensus was used, with adjudication by a lead author when necessary. A coding framework, modified from the ProFANE taxonomy, classified interventions and their attributes (e.g., supervision, delivery format, duration/intensity). For benefit outcomes, we employed random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach and a consistency model. Transitivity and coherence were assessed using meta-regressions and global and local coherence tests, as well as through graphical display and descriptive data on the composition of the nodes with respect to major pre-planned effect modifiers. We assessed heterogeneity using prediction intervals. For intervention-related adverse effects, we pooled proportions except for vitamin D for which we considered data in the control groups and undertook random-effects pairwise meta-analysis using a relative risk (any adverse effects) or risk difference (serious adverse effects). For outcome valuation, we pooled disutilities (representing the impact of a negative event, e.g. fall, on one's usual quality of life, with 0 = no impact and 1 = death and ~ 0.05 indicating important disutility) from the EQ-5D utility measurement using the inverse variance method and a random-effects model and explored heterogeneity. When studies only reported other data, we compared the findings with our main analysis. For intervention preferences, we used a coding schema identifying whether there were strong, clear, no, or variable preferences within, and then across, studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using CINeMA for benefit outcomes and GRADE for all other outcomes.
A total of 290 studies were included across the reviews, with two studies included in multiple questions. For benefits and harms, we included 219 trials reporting on 167,864 participants and created 59 interventions (nodes). Transitivity and coherence were assessed as adequate. Across eight NMAs, the number of contributing trials ranged between 19 and 173, and the number of interventions ranged from 19 to 57. Approximately, half of the interventions in each network had at least low certainty for benefit. The fallers outcome had the highest number of interventions with moderate certainty for benefit (18/57). For the non-fall outcomes (fractures, hip fracture, long-term care [LTC] admission, functional status, health-related quality of life), many interventions had very low certainty evidence, often from lack of data. We prioritized findings from 21 interventions where there was moderate certainty for at least some benefit. Fourteen of these had a focus on exercise, the majority being supervised (for > 2 sessions) and of long duration (> 3 months), and with balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions generally having the most outcomes with at least low certainty for benefit. None of the interventions having moderate certainty evidence focused on walking. Whole-body vibration or home-hazard assessment (HHA) plus exercise provided to everyone showed moderate certainty for some benefit. No multifactorial intervention alone showed moderate certainty for any benefit. Six interventions only had very-low certainty evidence for the benefit outcomes. Two interventions had moderate certainty of harmful effects for at least one benefit outcome, though the populations across studies were at high risk for falls. Vitamin D and most single-component exercise interventions are probably associated with minimal adverse effects. Some uncertainty exists about possible adverse effects from other interventions. For outcome valuation, we included 44 studies of which 34 reported EQ-5D disutilities. Admission to long-term care had the highest disutility (1.0), but the evidence was rated as low certainty. Both fall-related hip (moderate certainty) and non-hip (low certainty) fracture may result in substantial disutility (0.53 and 0.57) in the first 3 months after injury. Disutility for both hip and non-hip fractures is probably lower 12 months after injury (0.16 and 0.19, with high and moderate certainty, respectively) compared to within the first 3 months. No study measured the disutility of an injurious fall. Fractures are probably more important than either falls (0.09 over 12 months) or functional status (0.12). Functional status may be somewhat more important than falls. For intervention preferences, 29 studies (9 qualitative) reported on 17 comparisons among single-component interventions showing benefit. Exercise interventions focusing on balance and/or resistance training appear to be clearly preferred over Tai Chi and other forms of exercise (e.g., yoga, aerobic). For exercise programs in general, there is probably variability among people in whether they prefer group or individual delivery, though there was high certainty that individual was preferred over group delivery of balance/resistance programs. Balance/resistance exercise may be preferred over education, though the evidence was low certainty. There was low certainty for a slight preference for education over cognitive-behavioral therapy, and group education may be preferred over individual education.
To prevent falls among community-dwelling older adults, evidence is most certain for benefit, at least over 1-2 years, from supervised, long-duration balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions, whole-body vibration, high-intensity/dose education or cognitive-behavioral therapy, and interventions of comprehensive multifactorial assessment with targeted treatment plus HHA, HHA plus exercise, or education provided to everyone. Adding other interventions to exercise does not appear to substantially increase benefits. Overall, effects appear most applicable to those with elevated fall risk. Choice among effective interventions that are available may best depend on individual patient preferences, though when implementing new balance/resistance programs delivering individual over group sessions when feasible may be most acceptable. Data on more patient-important outcomes including fall-related fractures and adverse effects would be beneficial, as would studies focusing on equity-deserving populations and on programs delivered virtually.
Not registered.
Pillay J
，Gaudet LA
，Saba S
，Vandermeer B
，Ashiq AR
，Wingert A
，Hartling L
... -
《Systematic Reviews》
Healthcare workers' informal uses of mobile phones and other mobile devices to support their work: a qualitative evidence synthesis.
Healthcare workers sometimes develop their own informal solutions to deliver services. One such solution is to use their personal mobile phones or other mobile devices in ways that are unregulated by their workplace. This can help them carry out their work when their workplace lacks functional formal communication and information systems, but it can also lead to new challenges.
To explore the views, experiences, and practices of healthcare workers, managers and other professionals working in healthcare services regarding their informal, innovative uses of mobile devices to support their work.
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus on 11 August 2022 for studies published since 2008 in any language. We carried out citation searches and contacted study authors to clarify published information and seek unpublished data.
We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with a qualitative component. We included studies that explored healthcare workers' views, experiences, and practices regarding mobile phones and other mobile devices, and that included data about healthcare workers' informal use of these devices for work purposes.
We extracted data using an extraction form designed for this synthesis, assessed methodological limitations using predefined criteria, and used a thematic synthesis approach to synthesise the data. We used the 'street-level bureaucrat' concept to apply a conceptual lens to our findings and prepare a line of argument that links these findings. We used the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess our confidence in the review findings and the line-of-argument statements. We collaborated with relevant stakeholders when defining the review scope, interpreting the findings, and developing implications for practice.
We included 30 studies in the review, published between 2013 and 2022. The studies were from high-, middle- and low-income countries and covered a range of healthcare settings and healthcare worker cadres. Most described mobile phone use as opposed to other mobile devices, such as tablets. We have moderate to high confidence in the statements in the following line of argument. The healthcare workers in this review, like other 'street-level bureaucrats', face a gap between what is expected of them and the resources available to them. To plug this gap, healthcare workers develop their own strategies, including using their own mobile phones, data and airtime. They also use other personal resources, including their personal time when taking and making calls outside working hours, and their personal networks when contacting others for help and advice. In some settings, healthcare workers' personal phone use, although unregulated, has become a normal part of many work processes. Some healthcare workers therefore experience pressure or expectations from colleagues and managers to use their personal phones. Some also feel driven to use their phones at work and at home because of feelings of obligation towards their patients and colleagues. At best, healthcare workers' use of their personal phones, time and networks helps humanise healthcare. It allows healthcare workers to be more flexible, efficient and responsive to the needs of the patient. It can give patients access to individual healthcare workers rather than generic systems and can help patients keep their sensitive information out of the formal system. It also allows healthcare workers to communicate with each other in more personalised, socially appropriate ways than formal systems allow. All of this can strengthen healthcare workers' relationships with community members and colleagues. However, these informal approaches can also replicate existing social hierarchies and deepen existing inequities among healthcare workers. Personal phone use costs healthcare workers money. This is a particular problem for lower-level healthcare workers and healthcare workers in low-income settings as they are likely to be paid less and may have less access to work phones or compensation. Out-of-hours use may also be more of a burden for lower-level healthcare workers, as they may find it harder to ignore calls when they are at home. Healthcare workers with poor access to electricity and the internet are less able to use informal mobile phone solutions, while healthcare workers who lack skills and training in how to appraise unendorsed online information are likely to struggle to identify trustworthy information. Informal digital channels can help healthcare workers expand their networks. But healthcare workers who rely on personal networks to seek help and advice are at a disadvantage if these networks are weak. Healthcare workers' use of their personal resources can also lead to problems for patients and can benefit some patients more than others. For instance, when healthcare workers store and share patient information on their personal phones, the confidentiality of this information may be broken. In addition, healthcare workers may decide to use their personal resources on some types of patients, but not others. Healthcare workers sometimes describe using their personal phones and their personal time and networks to help patients and clients whom they assess as being particularly in need. These decisions are likely to reflect their own values and ideas, for instance about social equity and patient 'worthiness'. But these may not necessarily reflect the goals, ideals and regulations of the formal healthcare system. Finally, informal mobile phone use plugs gaps in the system but can also weaken the system. The storing and sharing of information on personal phones and through informal channels can represent a 'shadow IT' (information technology) system where information about patient flow, logistics, etc., is not recorded in the formal system. Healthcare workers may also be more distracted at work, for instance, by calls from colleagues and family members or by social media use. Such challenges may be particularly difficult for weak healthcare systems.
By finding their own informal solutions to workplace challenges, healthcare workers can be more efficient and more responsive to the needs of patients, colleagues and themselves. But these solutions also have several drawbacks. Efforts to strengthen formal health systems should consider how to retain the benefits of informal solutions and reduce their negative effects.
Glenton C
，Paulsen E
，Agarwal S
，Gopinathan U
，Johansen M
，Kyaddondo D
，Munabi-Babigumira S
，Nabukenya J
，Nakityo I
，Namaganda R
，Namitala J
，Neumark T
，Nsangi A
，Pakenham-Walsh NM
，Rashidian A
，Royston G
，Sewankambo N
，Tamrat T
，Lewin S
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
