An empirically sound telemedicine taxonomy – applying the CAFE methodology

Harst, Lorenz; Otto, Lena; Timpel, Patrick; Richter, Peggy; Lantzsch, Hendrikje; Wollschlaeger, Bastian; Winkler, Katja; Schlieter, Hannes

doi:10.1007/s10389-021-01558-2

Cited by 14 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 56 publications

(73 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of the search showed that the use of digital health services can be extensive and can be used for many different purposes and in different population groups. The results were analyzed according to the methodology given by Harst et al [ 41 ], which classifies interventions into 5 clusters, as discussed earlier. In this Results section, the purpose of using digital services is roughly categorized according to the clusters presented in the framework.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…“Device and use” was chosen as the primary theme based on the objective and main research question of this scoping review. The analysis was performed deductively using the framework developed by Harst et al [ 41 ]. The framework classifies interventions into 5 clusters: telemonitoring, teleconsultation, telediagnosis, teleambulance/tele-emergency, and digital self-management [ 41 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Use of Digital Health Services Among Patients and Citizens Living at Home: Scoping Review

Rosenlund¹,

Kinnunen²,

Saranto³

2023

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The development of digital health services reflects not only the technical development of services but also a change in attitude and the way of thinking. It has become a cornerstone for engaging and activating patients and citizens in health management while living at home. Digital health services are also aimed at enhancing the efficiency and quality of services, while simultaneously providing services more cost-effectively. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated worldwide the development and use of digital services in response to requirements for social distancing and other regulations. Objective The aim of this review is to identify and summarize how digital health services are being used among patients and citizens while living at home. Methods The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews was used as guidance. A search conducted in 3 databases (CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus) resulted in 419 papers. The reporting was conducted by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR), and the analysis of the included papers was performed using a framework consisting of 5 clusters describing the use of digital health services. After screening and excluding papers that did not match the inclusion criteria, 88 (21%) papers from 2010 to 2022 were included in the final analysis. Results Results indicated that digital health services are used in different situations and among different kinds of populations. In most studies, digital health services were used in the form of video visits or consultations. The telephone was also used regularly for consultations. Other services, such as remote monitoring and transmitting of recorded information and the use the of internet or portals for searching information, were observed as well. Alerts, emergency systems, and reminders were observed to offer possibilities of use, for example, among older people. The digital health services also showed to have potential for use in patient education. Conclusions The development of digital services reflects a shift toward the provision of care regardless of time and place. It also reflects a shift toward emphasis on patient-centered care, meaning activating and engaging patients in their own care as they use digital services for various health-related purposes. Despite the development of digital services, many challenges (eg, adequate infrastructure) still prevail worldwide.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of Digital Health Services Among Patients and Citizens Living at Home: Scoping Review

Rosenlund¹,

Kinnunen²,

Saranto³

2023

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A matrix was developed as the basis for data extraction. The studies were categorized by (1) study type (feasibility study, noncontrolled trial, controlled trial, and randomized controlled trial [RCT]), (2) medical purpose (first letter of International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision [ICD-10] classification [ 20 ]), and (3) application type based on the taxonomy developed by Harst et al [ 21 , 22 ]. This taxonomy was chosen because of its development based on empirical data, which allows its use in quantifying and statistically analyzing the characteristics of telemedicine applications.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Patient-Reported Experience Measures Within Evaluation Studies of Telemedicine Applications: Systematic Review

Knapp¹,

Harst²,

Häger³

et al. 2021

J Med Internet Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background With the rise of digital health technologies and telemedicine, the need for evidence-based evaluation is growing. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are recommended as an essential part of the evaluation of telemedicine. For the first time, a systematic review has been conducted to investigate the use of PROMs and PREMs in the evaluation studies of telemedicine covering all application types and medical purposes. Objective This study investigates the following research questions: in which scenarios are PROMs and PREMs collected for evaluation purposes, which PROM and PREM outcome domains have been covered and how often, which outcome measurement instruments have been used and how often, does the selection and quantity of PROMs and PREMs differ between study types and application types, and has the use of PROMs and PREMs changed over time. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search of the MEDLINE and Embase databases and included studies published from inception until April 2, 2020. We included studies evaluating telemedicine with patients as the main users; these studies reported PROMs and PREMs within randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, noncontrolled trials, and feasibility trials in English and German. Results Of the identified 2671 studies, 303 (11.34%) were included; of the 303 studies, 67 (22.1%) were feasibility studies, 70 (23.1%) were noncontrolled trials, 20 (6.6%) were controlled trials, and 146 (48.2%) were randomized controlled trials. Health-related quality of life (n=310; mean 1.02, SD 1.05), emotional function (n=244; mean 0.81, SD 1.18), and adherence (n=103; mean 0.34, SD 0.53) were the most frequently assessed outcome domains. Self-developed PROMs were used in 21.4% (65/303) of the studies, and self-developed PREMs were used in 22.3% (68/303). PROMs (n=884) were assessed more frequently than PREMs (n=234). As the evidence level of the studies increased, the number of PROMs also increased (τ=−0.45), and the number of PREMs decreased (τ=0.35). Since 2000, not only has the number of studies using PROMs and PREMs increased, but the level of evidence and the number of outcome measurement instruments used have also increased, with the number of PREMs permanently remaining at a lower level. Conclusions There have been increasingly more studies, particularly high-evidence studies, which use PROMs and PREMs to evaluate telemedicine. PROMs have been used more frequently than PREMs. With the increasing maturity stage of telemedicine applications and higher evidence level, the use of PROMs increased in line with the recommendations of evaluation guidelines. Health-related quality of life and emotional function were measured in almost all the studies. Simultaneously, health literacy as a precondition for using the application adequately, alongside proper training and guidance, has rarely been reported. Further efforts should be pursued to standardize PROM and PREM collection in evaluation studies of telemedicine.

show abstract

“…Telemedizinische Verfahren sind dabei gemäß der Definition der AG Telemedizin der Bundesärztekammer (BÄK) jegliche Erbringung medizinischer Leistungen am [5,17]).…”

Section: Teledermatologie -Eine Einführungunclassified

“…Tab. 1;[5,17]). S&F-Konsultationen bieten gegenüber der Videosowie der persönlichen Konsultation eine höhere zeitliche und örtliche Flexibilität für Patienten und behandelnde Ärzte.…”

unclassified