RESUMO
Introduction: The use of digital health interventions has expanded, particularly in home-based primary care (HBPC), following the increase in the older adult population and the need to respond to the higher demand of chronic conditions, weakness and loss of autonomy of this population. There was an even greater demand with COVID-19 and subsequent isolation/social distancing measures for this risk group. The objective of this study is to map and identify the uses and types of digital health interventions and their reported impacts on the quality of HBPC for older adults worldwide. Methods and analysis: This is a scoping review protocol which will enable a rigorous, transparent and reliable synthesis of knowledge. The review will be developed from the theoretical perspective of Arksey and O'malley, with updates by Levac and Peters and respective collaborators based on the Joanna Briggs Institute manual, and guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Data from white literature will be extracted from multidisciplinary health databases such as: the Virtual Health Library, LILACS, MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cinahl and Embase; while Google Scholar will be used for gray literature. No date limit or language restrictions will be determined. The quantitative data will be analyzed through descriptive statistics and qualitative data through thematic analysis. The results will be submitted to stakeholder consultation for preliminary sharing of the study and will later be disseminated through publication in open access scientific journals, scientific events and academic and community journals. The full scoping review report will present the main impacts, challenges, opportunities and gaps found in publications related to the use of digital technologies in primary home care. Discussion: The organization of this protocol will increase the methodological rigor, quality, transparency and accuracy of scoping reviews, reducing the risk of bias.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , Idoso , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Confiabilidade dos Dados , Bases de Dados Factuais , Tecnologia Digital , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto , Literatura de Revisão como AssuntoRESUMO
Background: Lifestyle Medicine (LM) aims to address six main behavioral domains: diet/nutrition, substance use (SU), physical activity (PA), social relationships, stress management, and sleep. Digital Health Interventions (DHIs) have been used to improve these domains. However, there is no consensus on how to measure lifestyle and its intermediate outcomes aside from measuring each behavior separately. We aimed to describe (1) the most frequent lifestyle domains addressed by DHIs, (2) the most frequent outcomes used to measure lifestyle changes, and (3) the most frequent DHI delivery methods. Methods: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-ScR) Extension for Scoping Reviews. A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science for publications since 2010. We included systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials using DHI to promote health, behavioral, or lifestyle change. Results: Overall, 954 records were identified, and 72 systematic reviews were included. Of those, 35 conducted meta-analyses, 58 addressed diet/nutrition, and 60 focused on PA. Only one systematic review evaluated all six lifestyle domains simultaneously; 1 systematic review evaluated five lifestyle domains; 5 systematic reviews evaluated 4 lifestyle domains; 14 systematic reviews evaluated 3 lifestyle domains; and the remaining 52 systematic reviews evaluated only one or two domains. The most frequently evaluated domains were diet/nutrition and PA. The most frequent DHI delivery methods were smartphone apps and websites. Discussion: The concept of lifestyle is still unclear and fragmented, making it hard to evaluate the complex interconnections of unhealthy behaviors, and their impact on health. Clarifying this concept, refining its operationalization, and defining the reporting guidelines should be considered as the current research priorities. DHIs have the potential to improve lifestyle at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of prevention-but most of them are targeting clinical populations. Although important advances have been made to evaluate DHIs, some of their characteristics, such as the rate at which they become obsolete, will require innovative research designs to evaluate long-term outcomes in health.