Scoping review of telemedicine and eHealth interventions for patient-clinician communication in abdominal aortic aneurysm care

Ann Vasc Surg. 2024 Nov 25:S0890-5096(24)00675-7. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2024.10.025. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Electronic health (eHealth) interventions may help address rising healthcare demands due to population ageing. However, the evidence for its application in older patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) remains unclear. This scoping review systematically maps and critically assesses the evidence on eHealth and telemedicine interventions that facilitate patient-clinician communication in AAA care.

DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase (EMBASE and MEDLINE), and the Web of Science (Core Collection).

REVIEW METHODS: This scoping review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. We identified articles published between 2010 and 2023 that reported using informational communication technologies to facilitate communication between healthcare professionals and AAA patients.

RESULTS: Sixteen studies were identified. Twelve (75%) were quantitative and four (25%) qualitative studies. The studies focused on four main categories of eHealth tools: remote consultations, apps, decision support tools, and extended reality. Most studies were deemed to be of low quality (n=8, 50%). Feasibility findings showed a wide range in acceptability (50-100%) and low app utilization rates (40-50%). eHealth interventions were found to potentially replace in-person hospital visits, increase patient knowledge, and promote shared decision-making. However, no significant effects on anxiety, depression, health status, mortality, or complications were reported.

CONCLUSION: EHealth interventions appear to be a feasible option for patient-clinician communication in older AAA patients. eHealth interventions potentially reduce in-person hospital visits, increase patient education, and promote shared decision-making. However, high-quality evidence on quantifiable patient outcome measures is limited. Further research with comparative control groups is needed to evaluate patient outcomes.

PMID:39603561 | DOI:10.1016/j.avsg.2024.10.025