Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research

Date Submitted: Aug 31, 2020
Date Accepted: May 16, 2021

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

eHealth in Geriatric Rehabilitation: Systematic Review of Effectiveness, Feasibility, and Usability

Kraaijkamp JJM, van Dam van Isselt EF, Persoon A, Versluis A, Chavannes NH, Achterberg WP

eHealth in Geriatric Rehabilitation: Systematic Review of Effectiveness, Feasibility, and Usability

J Med Internet Res 2021;23(8):e24015

DOI: 10.2196/24015

PMID: 34420918

PMCID: 8414304

eHealth in geriatric rehabilitation: a systematic review of effectiveness, feasibility and usability

  • Jules Jaques Marie Kraaijkamp; 
  • Eléonore F van Dam van Isselt; 
  • Anke Persoon; 
  • Anke Versluis; 
  • Niels H. Chavannes; 
  • Wilco P Achterberg

ABSTRACT

Background:

eHealth has the potential to improve outcomes in older adults receiving geriatric rehabilitation. However, evidence on (cost)effectiveness in post-acute geriatric rehabilitation is scarce, and the successful implementation and use of eHealth in geriatric rehabilitation is not self-evident.

Objective:

The aim of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness, usability and feasibility of eHealth interventions in older adults in geriatric rehabilitation.

Methods:

Seven databases were searched for randomized controlled trials, non-randomized studies, quantitative descriptive studies, qualitative research and mixed methods studies that applied eHealth interventions during geriatric rehabilitation. Included studies investigated effectiveness, usability and/or feasibility of eHealth in older patients with a mean age of ≥70 who received geriatric rehabilitation. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) and a narrative synthesis was conducted using a Harvest plot.

Results:

In total 34 were selected, with clinical heterogeneity across studies, and high exclusion rates reported in 7studies. Outcomes related to participation and usability were infrequently reported. In 16 studies eHealth was found to be at least as effective as non-eHealth interventions (73% of the included studies with a control group), 6 studies found eHealth interventions to be more effective than non-eHealth interventions (27%), and 2 studies reported beneficial outcomes in favor of the non-eHealth interventions (9%). Overall, the identified studies showed that eHealth is often feasible and can potentially improve rehabilitation outcomes, especially in combination with another (non)eHealth intervention. Simple eHealth interventions were more likely to be feasible for older patients receiving geriatric rehabilitation.

Conclusions:

Current evidence on eHealth in older patients receiving geriatric rehabilitation is diverse, making it challenging to compare outcomes and draw conclusions. Furthermore, a lack of evidence on usability might hamper the implementation of eHealth. eHealth applications in geriatric rehabilitation show promise but more research is required, including research with a focus on usability and participation


 Citation

Please cite as:

Kraaijkamp JJM, van Dam van Isselt EF, Persoon A, Versluis A, Chavannes NH, Achterberg WP

eHealth in Geriatric Rehabilitation: Systematic Review of Effectiveness, Feasibility, and Usability

J Med Internet Res 2021;23(8):e24015

DOI: 10.2196/24015

PMID: 34420918

PMCID: 8414304

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.