Impact of distance monitoring service in managing healthcare demand: a case study through the lens of cocreation

Wearables research for continuous monitoring of patient outcomes: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The use of wearable devices for remote health monitoring is a rapidly expanding field. These devices might benefit patients and providers; however, they are not yet widely used in healthcare. This scoping review assesses the current state of the literature on wearable devices for remote health monitoring in non-hospital settings.

METHODS

CINAHL, Scopus, Embase and MEDLINE were searched until August 5, 2024. We performed citation searching and searched Google Scholar. Studies on wearable devices in an outpatient setting with a clinically relevant, measurable outcome were included and were categorized according to intended use of data: monitoring of existing disease vs. diagnosis of new disease.

RESULTS

Eighty studies met eligibility criteria. Most studies used device data to monitor a chronic disease (68/80, 85%), most often neurodegenerative (22/68, 32%). Twelve studies (12/80, 15%) used device data to diagnose new disease, majority being cardiovascular (9/12, 75%). A range of wearable devices were studied with watches and bracelets being most common (50/80, 63%). Only six studies (8%) were randomized controlled trials, four of which (67%) showed evidence of positive clinical impact. Feasibility determinants were inconsistently reported, including compliance (51/80, 64%), patient-reported useability (13/80, 16%), and participant technology literacy (1/80, 1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for clinical effectiveness of wearable devices remains scant. Heterogeneity across studies in terms of devices, disease targets and monitoring protocols makes data synthesis challenging, especially given the rapid pace of technical innovation. These findings provide direction for future research and implementation of wearable devices in healthcare.

Data work and practices in healthcare: A scoping review

CONTEXT

In healthcare, digitization has been widespread and profound, entailing a deluge of data. This has spurred ambitions for healthcare to become data-driven to improve efficiency and quality, and within medicine itself to improve diagnosing and treating diseases. The generation and processing of data requires human intervention and work, though this is often not acknowledged.

PURPOSE

The paper investigates who, where, by which means, and for which purposes data work is conducted which is crucial for healthcare managers and policy makers if ambitions to become data-driven are to succeed. To guide further research, it also provides an overview of existing research on data work and practices.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review based on a search for papers including the terms healthcare or health care combined with at least one of the following terms: data work, data worker*, data practice*, data practitioner* in Scopus and Web of Science. 74 papers on data work or practices in healthcare were included.

ANALYSIS

The 74 papers were coded and analyzed regarding the following themes: the kind of data workers and practitioners, organizational settings, involved technologies, purposes, data work tasks, theories and concepts, and definitions of data work and practice.

RESULTS

Data work is pervasive in healthcare and conducted by various professions and people and in various contexts. The field researching data work and practices is emerging, with publications spread across multiple venues. and there is a need for more precise definitions of data work. Further, data work and practices are useful concepts that have enabled the exploration of those efforts and tasks in detail.

CONCLUSION

The research on data work and practices in healthcare is emerging and promising. We call for more research to consolidate the field and to better understand and support the work needed for healthcare to become data-driven.

Patient Co-Creation Initiatives in the Ambulatory Care Setting during COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Background and Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to significant changes in ambulatory care to meet new healthcare demands. Materials and Methods: A review of 21 articles focusing on patient co-creation initiatives during the pandemic shows that integrating patient feedback was crucial in transforming care delivery. Results: Joint efforts between healthcare professionals and patients led to new patient-focused telemedicine platforms, more efficient appointment systems, and improved safety measures. These adaptations overcame care barriers and maintained continuity of care. Key themes identified include monitoring community health standards, combining technology with patient-provider communication, and enhancing patient participation in health research. Conclusions: These co-creation efforts not only boosted patient satisfaction and outcomes but also demonstrated the potential for long-term healthcare innovations beyond the pandemic. The review further illuminates that co-creation in healthcare, particularly in tracking community health trends, is a practical strategy that involves diverse stakeholders in shaping healthcare delivery. The widespread adoption of co-creation in outpatient care during the pandemic highlights its role in driving patient-centered behavioral changes through innovative methods like crowdsourcing and dialogue conferencing. The review also recognizes that co-creation has been instrumental in responding to demographic changes, enhancing resources, creativity, and problem-solving in municipal-volunteer collaborations. Additionally, the evolution of technology in patient-provider communication, from initial resistance in the 1990s to its current critical role, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, underscores its importance in enhancing healthcare service delivery and patient data communication. The review also emphasizes the need for ethically and accessibly designed technology, especially for vulnerable groups, and highlights the significance of patient involvement in healthcare research, advocating for user-centered design and shared decision-making to create truly patient-centric interventions.