背景:移动技术越来越多地用于医疗保健和公共卫生实践中,用于患者沟通,监测,和教育。移动健康(mHealth)工具也已用于促进坚持慢性肌肉骨骼疼痛(CMP)管理,这对实现改善疼痛结果至关重要,生活质量,和具有成本效益的医疗保健。
目的:本系统综述的目的是评估有关依从性的文献的25年趋势,可用性,可行性,以及患者和医疗保健提供者在CMP管理中的mHealth干预措施的可接受性。
方法:我们搜索了PubMed,科克伦中部,MEDLINE,EMBASE,和WebofScience数据库,用于评估1999年1月至2023年12月mHealth在CMP管理中的作用的研究。感兴趣的结果包括mHealth干预对患者依从性的影响;干预后疼痛特异性临床结果;和可用性,可行性,以及目标最终用户在慢性疼痛管理中mHealth工具和平台的可接受性。
结果:共89篇(26,429名参与者)纳入系统评价。在纳入的研究中,移动应用程序是最常用的mHealth工具(78/89,88%)。其次是移动应用程序加显示器(5/89,6%),移动应用程序加可穿戴传感器(4/89,4%),和基于网络的移动应用程序加显示器(1/89,1%)。可用性,可行性,在26%(23/89)的研究中评估了mHealth干预措施的可接受性或患者偏好,并观察到总体较高.总的来说,30%(27/89)的研究使用随机对照试验(RCT),队列,或试点设计,以评估m健康干预对患者依从性的影响,在93%(25/27)的这些研究中观察到显著改善(所有P<0.05)。在测量mHealth对CMP特异性临床结果的影响的29个RCT中,有27个(93%)报告了组间差异的显着(在P<0.05时判断)。
结论:mHealth工具有很大的潜力来更好地促进对CMP管理的坚持,目前支持其有效性的证据普遍很高。进一步的研究应集中在mHealth干预措施的成本效益上,以更好地将这些工具纳入医疗保健实践。
背景:国际前瞻性系统审查注册(PROSPERO)CRD42024524634;https://www.crd.约克。AC.uk/prospro/display_record.php?RecordID=524634。
BACKGROUND: Mobile technologies are increasingly being used in health care and public health practice for patient communication, monitoring, and education. Mobile health (mHealth) tools have also been used to facilitate adherence to chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) management, which is critical to achieving improved pain outcomes, quality of life, and cost-effective health care.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the 25-year trend of the literature on the adherence, usability, feasibility, and acceptability of mHealth interventions in CMP management among patients and health care providers.
METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases for studies assessing the role of mHealth in CMP management from January 1999 to December 2023. Outcomes of interest included the effect of mHealth interventions on patient adherence; pain-specific clinical outcomes after the intervention; and the usability, feasibility, and acceptability of mHealth tools and platforms in chronic pain management among target end users.
RESULTS: A total of 89 articles (26,429 participants) were included in the systematic review. Mobile apps were the most commonly used mHealth tools (78/89, 88%) among the included studies, followed by mobile app plus monitor (5/89, 6%), mobile app plus wearable sensor (4/89, 4%), and web-based mobile app plus monitor (1/89, 1%). Usability, feasibility, and acceptability or patient preferences for mHealth interventions were assessed in 26% (23/89) of the studies and observed to be generally high. Overall, 30% (27/89) of the studies used a randomized controlled trial (RCT), cohort, or pilot design to assess the impact of the mHealth intervention on patients\' adherence, with significant improvements (all P<.05) observed in 93% (25/27) of these studies. Significant (judged at P<.05) between-group differences were reported in 27 of the 29 (93%) RCTs that measured the effect of mHealth on CMP-specific clinical outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: There is great potential for mHealth tools to better facilitate adherence to CMP management, and the current evidence supporting their effectiveness is generally high. Further research should focus on the cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions for better incorporating these tools into health care practices.
BACKGROUND: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42024524634; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=524634.