2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The effectiveness of eHealth interventions on female pelvic floor dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          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

          Introduction and hypothesis

          eHealth interventions represent a promising novel strategy in pelvic floor management for women. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of eHealth interventions among women with or at risk of pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) has not been adequately discussed to date. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of eHealth interventions in preventing and treating PFD among women.

          Methods

          Eleven electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception until August 28, 2021.

          Results

          Twenty-four RCTs were included in this meta-analysis that included 3691 women. The meta-analysis showed that eHealth interventions were not only vital for preventing PFD (pregnant women: pooled OR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.45, p < 0.001; postnatal women: pooled OR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.60, p = 0.005), but also for reducing the severity of PFD (pooled SMD = -0.63, 95% CI: -1.20 to -0.06, p = 0.031). In addition, compared with traditional care, eHealth interventions showed significant positive effects on several outcome indicators, including quality of life (pooled SMD = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.80, p = 0.002), pelvic floor type I muscle strength (pooled OR = 1.92, 95% CI: 1.30 to 2.82, p = 0.001), pelvic floor type II muscle strength (pooled OR = 2.04, 95% CI: 1.38 to 3.01, p < 0.001), sexual function (pooled SMD = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.73, p < 0.001), satisfaction (pooled OR = 3.93, 95% CI: 2.73 to 5.66, p < 0.001), and self-efficacy (pooled SMD = 2.62, 95% CI: 2.12 to 3.13, p < 0.001).

          Conclusions

          eHealth interventions are an effective emerging treatment and preventive modality for female PFD. Higher quality, larger scale, and strictly designed RCTs are warranted to evaluate the effectiveness of eHealth interventions on female pelvic floor management.

          Related collections

          Most cited references72

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

          The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            What is e-health?

            Introduction Everybody talks about e-health these days, but few people have come up with a clear definition of this comparatively new term. Barely in use before 1999, this term now seems to serve as a general "buzzword," used to characterize not only "Internet medicine", but also virtually everything related to computers and medicine. The term was apparently first used by industry leaders and marketing people rather than academics. They created and used this term in line with other "e-words" such as e-commerce, e-business, e-solutions, and so on, in an attempt to convey the promises, principles, excitement (and hype) around e-commerce (electronic commerce) to the health arena, and to give an account of the new possibilities the Internet is opening up to the area of health care. Intel, for example, referred to e-health as "a concerted effort undertaken by leaders in health care and hi-tech industries to fully harness the benefits available through convergence of the Internet and health care." Because the Internet created new opportunities and challenges to the traditional health care information technology industry, the use of a new term to address these issues seemed appropriate. These "new" challenges for the health care information technology industry were mainly (1) the capability of consumers to interact with their systems online (B2C = "business to consumer"); (2) improved possibilities for institution-to-institution transmissions of data (B2B = "business to business"); (3) new possibilities for peer-to-peer communication of consumers (C2C = "consumer to consumer"). So, how can we define e-health in the academic environment? One JMIR Editorial Board member feels that the term should remain in the realm of the business and marketing sector and should be avoided in scientific medical literature and discourse. However, the term has already entered the scientific literature (today, 76 Medline-indexed articles contain the term "e-health" in the title or abstract). What remains to be done is - in good scholarly tradition - to define as well as possible what we are talking about. However, as another member of the Editorial Board noted, "stamping a definition on something like e-health is somewhat like stamping a definition on 'the Internet': It is defined how it is used - the definition cannot be pinned down, as it is a dynamic environment, constantly moving." It seems quite clear that e-health encompasses more than a mere technological development. I would define the term and concept as follows: e-health is an emerging field in the intersection of medical informatics, public health and business, referring to health services and information delivered or enhanced through the Internet and related technologies. In a broader sense, the term characterizes not only a technical development, but also a state-of-mind, a way of thinking, an attitude, and a commitment for networked, global thinking, to improve health care locally, regionally, and worldwide by using information and communication technology. This definition hopefully is broad enough to apply to a dynamic environment such as the Internet and at the same time acknowledges that e-health encompasses more than just "Internet and Medicine". As such, the "e" in e-health does not only stand for "electronic," but implies a number of other "e's," which together perhaps best characterize what e-health is all about (or what it should be). Last, but not least, all of these have been (or will be) issues addressed in articles published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research. The 10 e's in "e-health" Efficiency - one of the promises of e-health is to increase efficiency in health care, thereby decreasing costs. One possible way of decreasing costs would be by avoiding duplicative or unnecessary diagnostic or therapeutic interventions, through enhanced communication possibilities between health care establishments, and through patient involvement. Enhancing quality of care - increasing efficiency involves not only reducing costs, but at the same time improving quality. E-health may enhance the quality of health care for example by allowing comparisons between different providers, involving consumers as additional power for quality assurance, and directing patient streams to the best quality providers. Evidence based - e-health interventions should be evidence-based in a sense that their effectiveness and efficiency should not be assumed but proven by rigorous scientific evaluation. Much work still has to be done in this area. Empowerment of consumers and patients - by making the knowledge bases of medicine and personal electronic records accessible to consumers over the Internet, e-health opens new avenues for patient-centered medicine, and enables evidence-based patient choice. Encouragement of a new relationship between the patient and health professional, towards a true partnership, where decisions are made in a shared manner. Education of physicians through online sources (continuing medical education) and consumers (health education, tailored preventive information for consumers) Enabling information exchange and communication in a standardized way between health care establishments. Extending the scope of health care beyond its conventional boundaries. This is meant in both a geographical sense as well as in a conceptual sense. e-health enables consumers to easily obtain health services online from global providers. These services can range from simple advice to more complex interventions or products such a pharmaceuticals. Ethics - e-health involves new forms of patient-physician interaction and poses new challenges and threats to ethical issues such as online professional practice, informed consent, privacy and equity issues. Equity - to make health care more equitable is one of the promises of e-health, but at the same time there is a considerable threat that e-health may deepen the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots". People, who do not have the money, skills, and access to computers and networks, cannot use computers effectively. As a result, these patient populations (which would actually benefit the most from health information) are those who are the least likely to benefit from advances in information technology, unless political measures ensure equitable access for all. The digital divide currently runs between rural vs. urban populations, rich vs. poor, young vs. old, male vs. female people, and between neglected/rare vs. common diseases. In addition to these 10 essential e's, e-health should also be easy-to-use, entertaining (no-one will use something that is boring!) and exciting - and it should definitely exist! We invite other views on the definition of e-health and hope that over time the journal will be filled with articles which together elucidate the realm of e-health. Gunther Eysenbach Editor, Journal of Medical Internet Research
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of eHealth Interventions in Somatic Diseases: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

              Background eHealth potentially enhances quality of care and may reduce health care costs. However, a review of systematic reviews published in 2010 concluded that high-quality evidence on the benefits of eHealth interventions was still lacking. Objective We conducted a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the effectiveness/cost-effectiveness of eHealth interventions in patients with somatic diseases to analyze whether, and to what possible extent, the outcome of recent research supports or differs from previous conclusions. Methods Literature searches were performed in PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on eHealth interventions published between August 2009 and December 2012. Articles were screened for relevance based on preset inclusion and exclusion criteria. Citations of residual articles were screened for additional literature. Included papers were critically appraised using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement before data were extracted. Based on conclusions drawn by the authors of the included articles, reviews and meta-analyses were divided into 1 of 3 groups: suitable, promising, or limited evidence on effectiveness/cost-effectiveness. Cases of uncertainty were resolved by consensus discussion. Effect sizes were extracted from papers that included a meta-analysis. To compare our results with previous findings, a trend analysis was performed. Results Our literature searches yielded 31 eligible reviews, of which 20 (65%) reported on costs. Seven papers (23%) concluded that eHealth is effective/cost-effective, 13 (42%) underlined that evidence is promising, and others found limited or inconsistent proof. Methodological quality of the included reviews and meta-analyses was generally considered high. Trend analysis showed a considerable accumulation of literature on eHealth. However, a similar percentage of papers concluded that eHealth is effective/cost-effective or evidence is at least promising (65% vs 62%). Reviews focusing primarily on children or family caregivers still remained scarce. Although a pooled (subgroup) analysis of aggregate data from randomized studies was performed in a higher percentage of more recently published reviews (45% vs 27%), data on economic outcome measures were less frequently reported (65% vs 85%). Conclusions The number of reviews and meta-analyses on eHealth interventions in patients with somatic diseases has increased considerably in recent years. Most articles show eHealth is effective/cost-effective or at least suggest evidence is promising, which is consistent with previous findings. Although many researchers advocate larger, well-designed, controlled studies, we believe attention should be given to the development and evaluation of strategies to implement effective/cost-effective eHealth initiatives in daily practice, rather than to further strengthen current evidence.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                fengsw@zju.edu.cn
                Journal
                Int Urogynecol J
                Int Urogynecol J
                International Urogynecology Journal
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                0937-3462
                1433-3023
                26 May 2022
                : 1-30
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.13402.34, ISNI 0000 0004 1759 700X, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, ; Hangzhou, Zhejiang China
                [2 ]GRID grid.13402.34, ISNI 0000 0004 1759 700X, Women’s Hospital, , Zhejiang University School of Medicine, ; No.1 Xue Shi Road, Hangzhou, 310006 Zhejiang Province People’s Republic of China
                Article
                5222
                10.1007/s00192-022-05222-5
                9135393
                35616695
                ba2df3a6-eb99-4699-8189-751f0167743a
                © The International Urogynecological Association 2022

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.

                History
                : 20 February 2022
                : 1 May 2022
                Categories
                Review Article

                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                pelvic floor dysfunction,ehealth,systematic review,meta-analysis
                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                pelvic floor dysfunction, ehealth, systematic review, meta-analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article