Search

BackgroundeHealth 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. ObjectiveWe 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. MethodsLiterature 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. ResultsOur 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%). ConclusionsThe 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.

Background: Occupational e-mental health (OeMH) interventions significantly reduce the burden of mental health conditions. The successful implementation of OeMH interventions is influenced by many implementation strategies, barriers, and facilitators across contexts, which, however, are not systematically tracked. One of the reasons is that international consensus on documenting and reporting the implementation of OeMH interventions is lacking. There is a need for practical guidance on the key factors influencing the implementation of interventions that organizations should consider. Stakeholder consultations secure a valuable source of information about these key strategies, barriers, and facilitators that are relevant to successful implementation of OeMH interventions., Objective: The objective of this study was to develop a brief checklist to guide the implementation of OeMH interventions., Methods: Based on the results of a recently published systematic review, we drafted a comprehensive checklist with a wide set of strategies, barriers, and facilitators that were identified as relevant for the implementation of OeMH interventions. We then used a 2-stage stakeholder consultation process to refine the draft checklist to a brief and practical checklist comprising key implementation factors. In the first stage, stakeholders evaluated the relevance and feasibility of items on the draft checklist using a web-based survey. The list of items comprised 12 facilitators presented as statements addressing "elements that positively affect implementation" and 17 barriers presented as statements addressing "concerns toward implementation." If a strategy was deemed relevant, respondents were asked to rate it using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from "very difficult to implement" to "very easy to implement." In the second stage, stakeholders were interviewed to elaborate on the most relevant barriers and facilitators shortlisted from the first stage. The interview mostly focused on the relevance and priority of strategies and factors affecting OeMH intervention implementation. In the interview, the stakeholders' responses to the open survey's questions were further explored. The final checklist included strategies ranked as relevant and feasible and the most relevant facilitators and barriers, which were endorsed during either the survey or the interviews., Results: In total, 26 stakeholders completed the web-based survey (response rate=24.8%) and 4 stakeholders participated in individual interviews. The OeMH intervention implementation checklist comprised 28 items, including 9 (32.1%) strategies, 8 (28.6%) barriers, and 11 (39.3%) facilitators. There was widespread agreement between findings from the survey and interviews, the most outstanding exception being the idea of proposing OeMH interventions as benefits for employees., Conclusions: Through our 2-stage stakeholder consultation, we developed a brief checklist that provides organizations with a guide for the implementation of OeMH interventions. Future research should empirically validate the effectiveness and usefulness of the checklist., (©Alberto Raggi, Renaldo M Bernard, Claudia Toppo, Carla Sabariego, Luis Salvador Carulla, Sue Lukersmith, Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen, Dorota Merecz-Kot, Beatriz Olaya, Rodrigo Antunes Lima, Desirée Gutiérrez-Marín, Ellen Vorstenbosch, Chiara Curatoli, Martina Cacciatore. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 15.03.2024.)