Methods: A community-based participatory research method was utilized. Two focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted in Malaysian sign language (BIM) with a total of 10 DHH individuals. Respondents were recruited using purposive sampling. Video-recordings were transcribed and analyzed using a thematic approach.
Results: Two themes emerged: (I) challenges and scepticism of the healthcare system; and (II) features of the mHealth app. Respondents expressed fears and concerns about accessing healthcare services, and stressed on the need for sign language interpreters. There were also concerns about data privacy and security. With regard to app features, the majority preferred videos instead of text to convey information about their disease and medication, due to their lower literacy levels.
Conclusions: For an mHealth app to be effective, app designers must ensure the app is individualised according to the cultural and linguistic diversity of the target audience. Pharmacists should also educate patients on the potential benefits of the app in terms of assisting patients with their medicine-taking.
METHODS: A random pair of neurosurgery resident and specialist conducted consecutive virtual and physical ward rounds on neurocritical patients. A virtual ward round was first conducted remotely by a specialist who received real-time audiovisual information from a resident wearing smart glasses integrated with telemedicine. Subsequently, a physical ward round was performed together by the resident and specialist on the same patient. The management plans of both ward rounds were compared, and the intrarater reliability was measured. On study completion a qualitative survey was performed.
RESULTS: Ten paired ward rounds were performed on 103 neurocritical care patients with excellent overall intrarater reliability. Nine out of 10 showed good to excellent internal consistency, and 1 showed acceptable internal consistency. Qualitative analysis indicated wide user acceptance and high satisfaction rate with the alternative method.
CONCLUSIONS: Virtual ward rounds using telemedicine via smart glasses on neurosurgical patients in critical care were feasible, effective, and widely accepted as an alternative to physical ward rounds during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.
METHODS: We conducted an online survey among neurosurgery residents in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand from May 22 to 31, 2020 using Google Forms. The 33-item questionnaire collected data on elective and emergency neurosurgical operations, ongoing learning activities, and health worker safety.
RESULTS: A total of 298 of 470 neurosurgery residents completed the survey, equivalent to a 63% response rate. The decrease in elective neurosurgical operations in Indonesia and in the Philippines (median, 100% for both) was significantly greater compared with other countries (P < 0.001). For emergency operations, trainees in Indonesia and Malaysia had a significantly greater reduction in their caseload (median, 80% and 70%, respectively) compared with trainees in Singapore and Thailand (median, 20% and 50%, respectively; P < 0.001). Neurosurgery residents were most concerned about the decrease in their hands-on surgical experience, uncertainty in their career advancement, and occupational safety in the workplace. Most of the residents (n = 221, 74%) believed that the COVID-19 crisis will have a negative impact on their neurosurgical training overall.
CONCLUSIONS: An effective national strategy to control COVID-19 is crucial to sustain neurosurgical training and to provide essential neurosurgical services. Training programs in Southeast Asia should consider developing online learning modules and setting up simulation laboratories to allow trainees to systematically acquire knowledge and develop practical skills during these challenging times.
METHODS: A review and comparison of mHealth apps in pediatric care found in Google's Play Store (Android system) and Apple's App Store (iOS system) were performed. For the structured review of the available literature, Google Scholar, PubMed, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, and Science Direct online databases were used for the literature search. The assessment criteria used for comparison included requirement for Internet connection, size of application, information on disease, diagnostic tools, medical calculator, information on disease treatments, dosage recommendations, and drug interaction checker.
RESULTS: Fifty mHealth apps for general pediatric care and 8 mHealth apps for specific pediatric diseases were discussed in the literature. Of the 90 mHealth apps we reviewed, 27 that fulfilled the study criteria were selected for quality assessment. Medscape, Skyscape, and iGuideline scored the highest (score=7), while PediaBP scored the lowest (score=3).
CONCLUSIONS: Medscape, Skyscape, and iGuideline are the most comprehensive mHealth apps for HCPs as quick references for pediatric care. More studies about mHealth apps in pediatric care are warranted to ensure the quality and reliability of mHealth apps.
METHODS: A review and comparison of mHealth apps for caring of older people available in Google's Play Store (Android system) and Apple's App Store (iOS system) were performed. Systematic review of previous relevant literature were conducted. The assessment criteria used for comparison were requirement for Internet connection, information of disease, size of app, diagnostics and assessment tools, medical calculator, dosage recommendations and indications, clinical updates, drugs interaction checker, and information on disease management.
RESULTS: Twenty-five mHealth apps were assessed. Medscape and Skyscape Medical Library are the most comprehensive mHealth apps for general drug information, medical references, clinical score, and medical calculator. Alzheimer's Disease Pocketcard and Confusion: Delirium & Dementia: A Bedside Guide apps are recommended for clinical assessment, diagnosis, drug information, and management of geriatric patients with Alzheimer disease, delirium, and dementia.
CONCLUSIONS: More studies about mHealth apps for caring of older people are warranted to ensure the quality and reliability of the mHealth apps.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the effects of telemedicine on asthma control and the quality of life in adults.
METHODS: An electronic search was performed from the inception to March 2018 on the following databases: Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, PubMed, and Scopus. Randomized controlled trials that assessed the effects of telemedicine in adults with asthma were included in this analysis, and the outcomes of interest were levels of asthma control and quality of life. Random-effects model meta-analyses were performed.
RESULTS: A total of 22 studies (10,281 participants) were included. Each of 11 studies investigated the effects of single-telemedicine and combined-telemedicine (combinations of telemedicine approaches), and the meta-analyses showed that combined tele-case management could significantly improve asthma control compared with usual care (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56, 1.01). Combined tele-case management and tele-consultation (SMD = 0.52 [95% CI: 0.13, 0.91]) and combined tele-consultation (SMD = 0.28 [95% CI: 0.13, 0.44]) also significantly improved asthma outcomes, but to a lesser degree. In addition, combined tele-case management (SMD = 0.59 [95% CI: 0.31, 0.88]) was the most effective telemedicine for improving quality of life, followed by combined tele-case management and tele-consultation (SMD = 0.31 [95% CI: 0.03, 0.59]), tele-case management (SMD = 0.30 [95% CI: 0.05, 0.55]), and combined tele-consultation (SMD = 0.27 [95% CI: 0.11, 0.43]), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Combined-telemedicine involving tele-case management or tele-consultation appear to be effective telemedicine interventions to improve asthma control and quality of life in adults. Our findings are expected to provide health care professionals with current evidence of the effects of telemedicine on asthma control and patients' quality of life.
OBJECTIVES: To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2016), searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including SMBG, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also included. RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes at total of 10 trials (538) women (468 women with type 1 diabetes and 70 women with type 2 diabetes). The trials took place in Europe and the USA. Five of the 10 included studies were at moderate risk of bias, four studies were at low to moderate risk of bias, and one study was at high risk of bias. The trials are too small to show differences in important outcomes such as macrosomia, preterm birth, miscarriage or death of baby. Almost all the reported GRADE outcomes were assessed as being very low-quality evidence. This was due to design limitations in the studies, wide confidence intervals, small sample sizes, and few events. In addition, there was high heterogeneity for some outcomes.Various methods of glucose monitoring were compared in the trials. Neither pooled analyses nor individual trial analyses showed any clear advantages of one monitoring technique over another for primary and secondary outcomes. Many important outcomes were not reported.1. Self-monitoring versus standard care (two studies, 43 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.49; one study, 28 women) or glycaemic control (both very low-quality), and not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and neonatal mortality and morbidity composite. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, neurosensory disability, and preterm birth were not reported in either study.2. Self-monitoring versus hospitalisation (one study, 100 women): there was no clear difference for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and hypertension) (RR 4.26, 95% CI 0.52 to 35.16; very low-quality: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.22; very low-quality). There was no clear difference in caesarean section or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (both very low quality), and the sample size was too small to assess perinatal mortality (very low-quality). Large-for-gestational age, mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.3. Pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring (one study, 61 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.28; very low-quality), large-for-gestational age (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.85; very low-quality) or glycaemic control (very low-quality). The results for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: pre-eclampsia and perinatal mortality are not meaningful because these outcomes were too rare to show differences in a small sample (all very low-quality). The study did not report the outcomes mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability or preterm birth.4. Automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system (three studies, 84 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.48; one study, 32 women; very low-quality), and mortality or morbidity composite in the one study that reported these outcomes. There were no clear differences for glycaemic control (very low-quality). No studies reported hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), neurosensory disability or preterm birth.5.CGM versus intermittent monitoring (two studies, 225 women): there was no clear difference for pre-eclampsia (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.59; low-quality), caesarean section (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I² = 62%; very low-quality) and large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.92; I² = 82%; very low-quality). Glycaemic control indicated by mean maternal HbA1c was lower for women in the continuous monitoring group (mean difference (MD) -0.60 %, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.29; one study, 71 women; moderate-quality). There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and there were no clear differences for preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (low-quality). Mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.6. Constant CGM versus intermittent CGM (one study, 25 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.79; very low-quality), glycaemic control (mean blood glucose in the 3rd trimester) (MD -0.14 mmol/L, 95% CI -2.00 to 1.72; very low-quality) or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.08 to 15.46; very low-quality). Other primary (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), mortality or morbidity composite, and neurosensory disability) or GRADE outcomes (preterm birth less than 34 weeks' gestation) were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no evidence that any glucose monitoring technique is superior to any other technique among pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The evidence base for the effectiveness of monitoring techniques is weak and additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of glucose monitoring techniques.