Background:The use of mobile phone technology to support various components of health care delivery (often referred to as mHealth) is on the rise. Little systematic information, however, is available on user felt needs and barriers to mHealth approaches among people with severe mental illness (SMI). Our objectives were to elicit user needs, preferences, and barriers to using mobile phones for health care service delivery among people with SMI.Materials and Methods:A cross-sectional study was carried out among 75 subjects with SMI between August 2017 and October 2017. All patients had a minimum illness duration of two years or more and a Global Assessment of Functioning score of less than 70. Information on user perspectives was elicited using a 10-item structured questionnaire, to assess mobile phone usage patterns, felt needs, barriers, and preferences, developed for use in patients with SMI.Results:Majority of the patients reported using mobile phones and were favorably disposed to mHealth approaches. Voice calls (n = 47, 62.7%) were the most preferred mode of service delivery. The most preferred service frequency was twice-weekly (n = 31, 41.3%), followed by once-weekly (n = 22, 29.3%). Majority (n = 47, 62.7%) reported no barriers to mobile phone usage, whereas 14 (18.6%) perceived a lack of necessity of mobile phones as a service delivery medium. Reminders about medication and appointments through mobile phones (n = 35, 46.6%) were the most felt needs, followed by crisis helplines (n = 27, 36.0%) and information about mental health services (n = 22, 29.3%).Conclusion:These findings support the use of mHealth approaches in resource-constrained settings and provide specific inputs to refine the modalities of mHealth service delivery.
Peripheral artery disease is a prevalent illness affecting more than 200 million people worldwide. A commonly used technique to manage the condition has been open endarterectomy. However, in recent times, a shift towards minimally invasive techniques has resulted in endovascular intervention as a popular alternative. This review aims to assess the safety and efficacy of endovascular intervention when compared with endarterectomy. A systematic review of the articles published in PubMed, Ovid, Embase, and Scopus within the last 10 years was conducted. The PRISMA guidelines were adhered to, and the Newcastle-Ottawa and NICE quality assessment scales were used. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed using the RStudio software (RStudio Team (2021). RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R, PBC, Boston, MA, USA). Twenty-six studies were included, with a total of 7126 patients (endovascular, 2496; endarterectomy, 4630). Technical success was greater for endarterectomy than endovascular intervention with an odds ratio of 0.38; 95% CI [0.27–0.54]. In terms of safety as well endovascular intervention was better than endarterectomy with an odds ratio of 0.22; 95% CI [0.15 to 0.31] for wound infection. Endovascular intervention is a safe and effective procedure; however, it cannot be considered superior to endarterectomy.
Aim To compare the safety and efficacy of endovascular stenting to endarterectomy in treating femoral artery disease. Method We searched databases such as PubMed, Ovid, Embase and Scopus for studies done on endovascular and endarterectomy treatments in the last decade. The inclusion criteria comprised of latest studies within the last 10 years, human studies and restricting to only femoral artery disease. Relevancy of the articles were assessed using PRISMA and the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. Thereafter, the data were extracted, and the statistical variables were calculated using MedCalc software. The PRISMA checklist was used to assess risk of bias. Results Total of twenty-six retrospective, prospective and sub-analysis studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 7126 patients (endovascular, 2496; endarterectomy, 4630). A division of the outcomes into primary and secondary were assessed based on direct correlation to the parameters evaluated. Our review demonstrated a higher value of technical success for endovascular intervention than endarterectomy with an odds ratio of 4.27 and statistically significant at 95% CI (2.87–6.38). In terms of safety, wound complications, and mortality (short and long-term) were evaluated. For wound infection, endovascular had better odds ratio of 0.65; 95% CI [0.51 to 0.81] and thus preferrable. Delayed wound healing and dehiscence occurred only in 0.15% of endovascular procedures in contrast to 0.99% in endarterectomy. There was no significant difference in both the mortality rates in the two groups appraised. Conclusions Endovascular treatment of femoral artery disease is a safe and effective alternative to endarterectomy. It has a lower incidence of wound related and other perioperative complications.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.