20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      eHealth Technologies for Monitoring Pediatric Asthma at Home: Scoping Review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          eHealth monitoring technologies offer opportunities to more objectively assess symptoms when they appear in daily life. Asthma is the most common chronic disease in childhood with an episodic course, requiring close follow-up of pediatric asthma control to identify disease deterioration, prevent exacerbations, and enhance quality of life. eHealth technologies in pediatric asthma care show promising results regarding feasibility, acceptability, and asthma-related health outcomes. However, broad systematic evaluations of eHealth technologies in pediatric asthma are lacking.

          Objective

          The objective of this scoping review was to identify the types and applications of eHealth technologies for monitoring and treatment in pediatric asthma and explore which monitoring domains show the most relevance or potential for future research.

          Methods

          A scoping review was conducted using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. A systematic and comprehensive search was performed on English papers that investigated the development, validation, or application of eHealth technologies for home monitoring or treatment of pediatric asthma in the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, IEEE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ACM Digital Library. Two authors independently assessed eligibility and extracted data. Data were presented by a descriptive analysis of characteristics and a narrative report for each eHealth domain.

          Results

          The review included 370 manuscripts. The following 10 monitoring domains were identified: air quality, airway inflammation markers, lung function, physical activity, sleep, audiovisual, other physiological measurements, questionnaires, medication monitoring, and digital environment (ie, digital platforms, applications, websites, and software tools to monitor or support monitoring). Rising numbers of studies were seen, and the numbers accelerated in the last few years throughout most domains, especially medication monitoring and digital environment. Limited studies (35/370, 9.5%) of multiparameter monitoring strategies, using three or more domains, were found. The number of monitoring validation studies remained stable, while development and intervention studies increased. Intervention outcomes seemed to indicate the noninferiority and potential superiority of eHealth monitoring in pediatric asthma.

          Conclusions

          This systematic scoping review provides a unique overview of eHealth pediatric asthma monitoring studies, and it revealed that eHealth research takes place throughout different monitoring domains using different approaches. The outcomes of the review showed the potency for efficacy of most monitoring domains (especially the domains of medication monitoring, lung function, and digital environment). Future studies could focus on modifying potentially relevant hospital-based diagnostics for the home setting to investigate potential beneficial effects and focus on combining home-monitoring domains to facilitate multiparameter decision-making and personalized clinical decision support.

          Related collections

          Most cited references423

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

            Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews

              Background Scoping reviews are used to identify knowledge gaps, set research agendas, and identify implications for decision-making. The conduct and reporting of scoping reviews is inconsistent in the literature. We conducted a scoping review to identify: papers that utilized and/or described scoping review methods; guidelines for reporting scoping reviews; and studies that assessed the quality of reporting of scoping reviews. Methods We searched nine electronic databases for published and unpublished literature scoping review papers, scoping review methodology, and reporting guidance for scoping reviews. Two independent reviewers screened citations for inclusion. Data abstraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative (e.g. frequencies of methods) and qualitative (i.e. content analysis of the methods) syntheses were conducted. Results After searching 1525 citations and 874 full-text papers, 516 articles were included, of which 494 were scoping reviews. The 494 scoping reviews were disseminated between 1999 and 2014, with 45 % published after 2012. Most of the scoping reviews were conducted in North America (53 %) or Europe (38 %), and reported a public source of funding (64 %). The number of studies included in the scoping reviews ranged from 1 to 2600 (mean of 118). Using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology guidance for scoping reviews, only 13 % of the scoping reviews reported the use of a protocol, 36 % used two reviewers for selecting citations for inclusion, 29 % used two reviewers for full-text screening, 30 % used two reviewers for data charting, and 43 % used a pre-defined charting form. In most cases, the results of the scoping review were used to identify evidence gaps (85 %), provide recommendations for future research (84 %), or identify strengths and limitations (69 %). We did not identify any guidelines for reporting scoping reviews or studies that assessed the quality of scoping review reporting. Conclusion The number of scoping reviews conducted per year has steadily increased since 2012. Scoping reviews are used to inform research agendas and identify implications for policy or practice. As such, improvements in reporting and conduct are imperative. Further research on scoping review methodology is warranted, and in particular, there is need for a guideline to standardize reporting. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Med Internet Res
                J Med Internet Res
                JMIR
                Journal of Medical Internet Research
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                1439-4456
                1438-8871
                2023
                21 July 2023
                : 25
                : e45896
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Pediatric Department Medisch Spectrum Twente Enschede Netherlands
                [2 ] Department of Biomedical Signals and Systems University of Twente Enschede Netherlands
                [3 ] Medical School Twente Medisch Spectrum Twente Enschede Netherlands
                [4 ] Health Technology and Services Research Faculty of Behavioral, Management and Social Sciences University of Twente Enschede Netherlands
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Mattiènne R van der Kamp mattienne@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3053-2342
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6691-3548
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1781-5794
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7495-0373
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5082-1112
                Article
                v25i1e45896
                10.2196/45896
                10403763
                37477966
                1106be9c-e1b0-4df1-8181-390e325f546d
                ©Mattiènne R van der Kamp, Vera S Hengeveld, Marjolein G J Brusse-Keizer, Boony J Thio, Monique Tabak. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 21.07.2023.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 20 January 2023
                : 5 April 2023
                : 18 May 2023
                : 5 June 2023
                Categories
                Review
                Review

                Medicine
                telemedicine,wearable electronic devices,asthma,child,pediatrics,internet-based interventions,monitoring,computers,hand-held device,medication,spirometry

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log