Effectiveness of telehealth vs standard care on health care utilization, QoL, & well-being in homebound populations, 2022, Pinero de Plaza et al

Full title: Effectiveness of telehealth versus standard care on health care utilization, health-related quality of life, and well-being in homebound populations: a systematic review protocol

Abstract

Objective:
The objective of the review is to determine the effectiveness of telehealth versus in-person care on health care utilization, health-related quality of life and well-being in homebound populations.

Introduction:
Globally, an increasing number of people are becoming homebound. These individuals experience high levels of social isolation and deterioration of their well-being. Reports from homebound people and recent publications suggest that this cohort may benefit from accessing telehealth solutions from their homes to treat and prevent serious issues affecting their health and well-being. This review will synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of telehealth compared to standard care (in-person care) on health care utilization, health-related quality of life, and well-being in homebound populations.

Inclusion criteria:
Studies including people living in community settings, whose daily life is physically limited to the boundary of their homes because of their ongoing health, energy, and psychosocial or socio-functional impairments will be considered for inclusion.

Methods:
This review will consider relevant, peer-reviewed primary experimental and quasi-experimental studies, with no limit on language or date, form: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, LILACS, JBI Evidence Synthesis (hand-searched for further studies), and Web of Science. Two independent reviewers will be involved in study selection and data extraction. Eligible studies will be critically appraised for methodological quality using the relevant JBI critical appraisal checklists, and statistical meta-analysis will be done (where possible). Findings will be presented in narrative form.

Open access, https://journals.lww.com/jbisrir/Ab...of_telehealth_versus_standard_care.99706.aspx

 

‘Standard care’ for the housebound is often no care, so if this control group got home visits that would not be ‘standard care’ in the usual sense of the phrase.

 

There is this giant gap between those that can go to a GP and those that are carried into Emergency care with an ambulance. In the middle is probably 1 in 100 people who are unable to attend their GP or any outpatients on any appointment schedule. ME/CFS clinics do not do home visits nor phone appointments despite the fact that 20% of their patients are so severe they obviously can't attend and many more are regularly unable to make the trip. So if all they do is look at standard care they will miss the bulk of people with this who are not in managed homes and who do not receive any care at all. Its not a small gap in standard care its massive.