Telehealth and goal-setting: a scoping review of mobile phones and computing devices

Le résumé fourni par la source

This scoping review aimed to identify studies that incorporated mobile phones or computing devices into rehabilitation interventions including goal-setting as part of the intervention. It examined their characteristics, target users, and supporting evidence to guide practice and future research. A search of six databases was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Sixty-eight articles were identified, involving interactions using mobile phones (n = 46) and computing devices (n = 36). Synchronous telehealth delivery modes were the most investigated (n = 15 for mobile phones; n = 16 for computing devices), with phone conversations being the most common for mobile phones (n = 23) and videoconferencing most prevalent for computing devices (n = 18). Neurological and developmental conditions were the most frequently studied (n = 17 for mobile phones; n = 16 for computing devices). Mobile phones predominantly facilitated physical health goals (n = 11), while computing devices supported both physical health (n = 7) and daily activity goal-setting (n = 7). Research gaps included a lack of studies on telehealth technology selection, service provider competence, and end-user engagement. Additionally, few studies targeted psychiatric and behavioural conditions (n = 3 for mobile phones; n = 2 for computing devices), and none explored video conferencing platform selection. In conclusion, this study found more research on goal-setting using mobile phones, with stronger evidence, but none examined communication quality. Research on psychosocial populations was limited, despite their high cancellation rates. Challenges in rapport building, miscommunication, and therapeutic relationships in telehealth were highlighted, indicating areas for further research.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.