https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9528-6299
Figures
Abstract
Introduction
People living with asthma require regular reviews to address their concerns and questions, assess control, review medication, and support self-management. However, practical barriers to attending face-to-face consultations might limit routine reviews. Reviewing asthma using asynchronous digital health interventions could be convenient for patients and an efficient way of maintaining communication between patients and healthcare professionals and improving health outcomes. We, therefore, aim to conduct a mixed-methods systematic review to assess the effectiveness of reviewing asthma by asynchronous digital health interventions and explore the views of patients and healthcare professionals about the role of such interventions in delivering asthma care.
Methods
We will search MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from 2001 to present without imposing any language restrictions. We are interested in studies of asynchronous digital health interventions used either as a single intervention or contributing to mixed modes of review. Two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts, and retrieve potentially relevant studies for full assessment against the eligibility criteria and extract data. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion with the review team. We will use ‘Downs and Black’ checklist, ‘Critical Appraisal Skills Programme’, and ‘Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool’ to assess methodological quality of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies respectively. After synthesising quantitative (narrative synthesis) and qualitative (thematic synthesis) data separately, we will integrate them following methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
Citation: Uzzaman MN, Hammersley V, McClatchey K, Sheringham J, Habib GMM, Pinnock H (2023) Asynchronous digital health interventions for reviewing asthma: A mixed-methods systematic review protocol. PLoS ONE 18(2): e0281538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281538
Editor: Heather Leggett, The University of York, UNITED KINGDOM
Received: August 12, 2022; Accepted: January 25, 2023; Published: February 9, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Uzzaman et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: No datasets were generated or analysed for this systematic review protocol. Summary tables and syntheses from the review will be made publicly available in a peer-reviewed publication.
Funding: MNU is supported by a University of Edinburgh College of Medicine PhD Studentship (Grant number 34678) funded by the University of Edinburgh College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine (CMVM) within the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research (AUKCAR). The PhD studentship is nested in the IMP2ART (IMPlementing IMProved Asthma self-management as RouTine) programme at the University of Edinburgh (https://www.ed.ac.uk/usher/imp2art). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Asthma is a common, long-term airway disease affecting up to 18% of all age groups globally [1, 2]. Although, hospitalisation and deaths from asthma have declined in some countries, asthma continues to exert an unacceptably high burden on healthcare systems and society, resulting in reduced productivity at work and social disruption [2]. National and international guidelines recommend that people with asthma should be provided with self-management education reinforced by a personalised asthma action plan and supported by regular review to improve their control over their asthma [3–5]. An asthma review is a routine check-up of people with asthma to assess control, respond to that assessment by adjusting the management strategy, as well as to explore patients’ thoughts, concerns, and expectations, and to guide self-management [6, 7]. Asthma reviews should be completed regularly (at least annually in stable patients) as a scheduled appointment [8]. A more frequent review may be necessary when a diagnosis is first made or for those who have poor asthma control [8]. However, across the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS), 1 in 20 patients miss general practice (GP) appointments [9], and asthma clinics have higher than average proportion of missed appointments [10]. Practical barriers such as geographical distance, work commitments, transportation time and cost, long waiting time to attend face-to-face consultations may be barriers to regular reviews of asthma [11].
Digital health uses innovative information and communication technology to meet health demands. The term ‘digital health’ is an umbrella term encompassing eHealth, mHealth, health information technology, wearable devices, telehealth, telemedicine, and increasingly is linked with advanced computing such as machine learning and artificial intelligence [12, 13]. The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2005 urged member states to draw up a strategic plan for promotion of equitable, affordable and universal access to the benefits of digital health services [14]. In 2012, the European health policy framework-Health 2020 highlighted the importance of digital technology in advancing public health priorities and achieving the health-related Sustainable Development Goals [15, 16]. In the UK [17], there has been a drive over the last decade to increase the use of digital health interventions for managing and monitoring people with long-term conditions at home, and reduce the need for avoidable visits to their GP practice and hospital. For asthma, a condition that places a substantial burden on healthcare systems, using digital health interventions to review asthma could be convenient for patients and an efficient way of maintaining communication between patients and healthcare professionals and improving health outcomes [18].
Digital health interactions are typically categorised as: synchronous or real-time, a live consultation (for example, videoconferencing between patients and healthcare professionals); or asynchronous or ‘store-and-forward’, a non-concurrent consultation (for example, transmission of clinical data from patients through email that allows a healthcare professional to review the data and provide feedback at a later time) [19, 20]. Synchronous remote asthma reviews using telephone or videoconferencing have become mainstream during the COVID-19 pandemic [21, 22]. They are relatively well investigated and have been shown to increase asthma review rates without clinical disadvantage or loss of satisfaction [23–27]. Asynchronous reviews may overcome the temporal limitations of in-person and remote synchronous care, and have the potential to support the care of large numbers of patients with asthma [28]. Existing systematic reviews (see Table 1) have synthesised the evidence for a broad range of digital technologies, telemonitoring and telehealth (the terminology is used inconsistently) [18, 29–37] but there are no reviews synthesising the evidence for the effectiveness specifically of asynchronous digital health interventions for routine asthma care, nor exploring the views and experiences of patients and/or professional stakeholders on their utility. We therefore aimed to systematically review the qualitative and quantitative evidence to derive recommendations for policy and practice on the use of asynchronous digital health interventions for reviewing asthma.
Review questions
Specifically the review questions are:
- How are asynchronous digital health interventions used for reviewing asthma?
- 1.1. What digital health functionality is used?
- 1.2. How is digital health incorporated into routine asthma care?
- What are the effects of asynchronous digital health interventions on asthma control, acute attacks, quality of life, and other healthcare outcomes compared to usual care or no review consultation?
- What are the views and experiences of patients, and/or healthcare professionals on asynchronous digital health interventions for reviewing people with asthma in terms of:
- 3.1. Acceptability for receiving or providing care for individuals?
- 3.2. Organisational approaches to delivering care?
- From the quantitative and qualitative synthesis, what findings (if any) can be applied to clinical practice and policymaking?
- What are the gaps in existing research?
Methodology
We will follow the methodology in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions to conduct this mixed-methods review [38]. We will follow a results-based convergent design where qualitative and quantitative data will be analysed and presented separately but integrated using a further synthesis [39]. The review is registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022344224), any changes to the published record will be reported.
Search strategy
One review author (MNU) will develop a search strategy involving the review team (HP, VH, KM, JS and MH) and a senior librarian from the University of Edinburgh. MNU will identify records through searching the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library (S1 Appendix). We will search the databases from 2001 because access to the internet increased after the introduction of third-generation (3G) cellular technologies, and interactive asynchronous communication thus became a viable option for more people [40]. We will not impose any restriction on language of publication during database searching and arrange translation to English of potentially relevant quantitative studies to enable selection and data extraction [41]. However, we will only consider qualitative and mixed-methods studies written in English because of the loss of nuance with language translation [42] but we will provide a brief description in the final results. We will conduct a pre-publication update by checking the reference lists and conducting forward citation of all studies selected for additional eligible studies [43].
Study selection
Following the search, all identified citations will be downloaded into EndNote 20 (Clarivate Analytics, PA, USA) and duplicates removed using SRA Deduplicator software [44]. Two authors (MNU and MH) will independently screen titles and abstracts, retrieve and review full-text papers for inclusion of studies against the eligibility criteria (see Table 2) using Covidence (www.covidence.org) [45]. Reasons for exclusion of full-text studies that do not meet the inclusion criteria will be recorded and reported. Any disagreements that arise between the two reviewers (MNU and MH) at any stage of the study selection process will be resolved through discussion and involve the review team (HP, VH, KM, JS) if necessary. The results of the search will be presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram [46].
Data extraction and management
Two review authors (MNU and MH) will pilot the data extraction form on at least one quantitative and one qualitative study before data are extracted from the remaining included studies using a refined form. We will extract data into a Microsoft Word and Excel file as necessary. Two review authors (MNU and MH) will independently extract data from all included studies (quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods) and another author (HP/VH/KM/JS) will check accuracy of data transcribed into tables or meta-analyses. Any disagreement between MNU and MH relating to data extraction will be resolved by consensus. A third review author (HP/VH/KM/JS) will be involved to resolve any outstanding disagreement as necessary.
Quantitative studies.
Two review authors (MNU and MH) will independently extract the following study characteristics from included studies.
- Participants: number, mean age, gender, severity of condition, diagnostic criteria, baseline lung function, smoking history, inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria.
- Methods: study design, duration of study, number of study centres and location, study setting, and date of study.
- Interventions: intervention, comparison, concomitant medications and excluded medications.
- Outcomes: primary and secondary outcomes specified and collected: e.g., mean (standard deviation), median (interquartile range), confidence intervals, P-values, measurement scales used, and time points reported.
- Notes: funding for studies and conflicts of interest of trial authors.
Qualitative studies.
Two review authors (MNU and MH) will extract the following study characteristics from included studies.
- Study details: country, study type (e.g. focus group, semi-structured interviews, structured interviews), dates, source of funding, objectives.
- Participants: number, mean age, gender, severity of condition, diagnostic criteria, baseline lung function, smoking history, inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria.
- Methods: sampling, setting (e.g. community or outpatient or hospital), data collection (e.g. how the authors conducted the study, length of interviews, whether interviews were recorded, use of interview guide), data analysis (e.g. method of analysis of transcripts, framework used, coding, thematic map).
- Results: themes and quotes from participants, and authors’ interpretations.
Dealing with missing data
We will use email to contact study authors for any unreported data or clarification of study methodologies. If data is still unavailable, we will analyse the available data and reflect on the significance of missing data in the discussion section.
Methodological quality assessment
All included studies (quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods) will be assessed for methodological quality independently and in duplicate by two review authors (MNU and MH). We will resolve any disagreements by discussion or by involving another author (HP/VH/KM/JS) if necessary.
Quantitative studies.
To assess the methodological quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), we will use the Cochrane risk of bias tool which assesses selection, performance, detection, attrition, reporting and other sources of bias enabling each study to be assigned as low; moderate; or high risk of bias [50]. We will record and tabulate a summary of the assessment with the overall judgement. For non-randomised studies, we will use the Downs and Black checklist [51]. To reflect the relative weight of the quantitative findings, we will adopt the previously published approach of summarising three attributes for each study (design, population size, quality score) when presenting data from the different studies [52].
Qualitative studies.
We will assess study quality by identifying methodological strengths and limitations (i.e., rigour) of included studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) quality assessment tool for qualitative studies [53], following the domains recommended by the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group [54]:
- Clarity of aims and research question
- Congruence between the research question and design
- Rigour of case and/or participant identification, sampling, and data collection to address the question
- Proper application of the method; conceptual depth of findings, exploration of deviant cases and alternative clarifications, and reflexivity of the researchers
- We will present the quality assessment findings in a table.
Mixed-methods studies.
We will use the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) to assess risk of bias [55]. We will assess the risk of bias according to the following criteria:
- Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed-methods design to address the research question?
- Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question?
- Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately addressed?
- Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed?
- Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved?
Data synthesis
Quantitative data.
Based on our initial scoping we anticipate that our included studies will have substantial clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity and meta-analysis may not be appropriate. If that is the case, we will do a narrative synthesis to show the major outcomes and their relationships [50], illustrating findings graphically if appropriate [56]. However, if we find sufficient number of RCTs, we will perform meta-analysis for the clinical outcomes (asthma control, acute attacks, and asthma-related quality of life). One review author (MNU) will conduct the meta-analysis using Review Manager software (RevMan 2020, V.5.4.1) and another review author (MH) will check data accuracy. We will conduct a pooled quantitative synthesis for homogeneous data from RCTs using an inverse variance method and a random-effects model in the meta-analysis. If the included RCTs use the same outcome measurement tool, we will use pooled mean differences. However, if (as expected) outcome measurement tool varies among trials, we will consider standardised mean differences.
Qualitative data.
We will use thematic synthesis to combine the findings of studies that describe the views and experiences of patients and healthcare professionals on asynchronous asthma reviews. Following recognised methodology [57], two review authors (MNU and MH) will begin by familiarising themselves with the data against the aims of the review and note recurrent themes across the studies. After that they will develop a coding framework in discussion with the review team (HP, VH, KM, and JS). MNU and MH will independently perform line-by-line initial coding of the findings of the included studies (defined as all the text/quotes under the heading of ‘results’ or ‘findings’) translating the concepts from one study to another. They will then search for themes according to the predetermined thematic framework adding additional themes as they emerge. Analysis will be iterative and involve the multi-disciplinary author team before finalising the overarching themes and sub-themes. We will initially analyse patients and healthcare professionals’ data separately to identify, for example, conflicting views or experiences. If we find that the views and experiences are similar, we may combine the two subgroups in subsequent syntheses. We will generate tables of author-reported categories, themes, and subthemes regarding asynchronous online asthma reviews.
Combining quantitative and qualitative data.
After synthesising quantitative and qualitative data separately, we will integrate them following the methods and recommendations outlined in the Cochrane Handbook [58]. We will choose the appropriate methods and tools for integration as the review progresses following the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance [59]. We anticipate that we will juxtapose the quantitative and qualitative findings in a matrix. The findings from the qualitative evidence synthesis (e.g. intervention components linked to acceptability or feasibility of the interventions) will drive juxtaposition, and these findings will make up one side of the matrix. The other side of the matrix will contain findings on intervention effects (e.g., improves outcome, no difference in result, unknown impacts). The presence or absence of features indicated by the hypotheses obtained from the qualitative synthesis will be used to categorise quantitative studies based on findings on intervention effects and the presence or absence of features specified by the qualitative synthesis [60]. Observed patterns in the matrix (if any) will be used to explain variations in quantitative study findings and to identify research gaps [61].
Interpretation will be aided by discussion within the multidisciplinary team and with the insights of patient and public involvement colleagues from the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research (https://www.ed.ac.uk/usher/aukcar).
Assessment of confidence in evidence
Quantitative data.
We will use the five GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) considerations (risk of bias, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the quality of evidence for the primary quantitative outcomes following the methods and recommendations described in the Cochrane Handbook [62]. We will use GRADEpro GDT software [63] and provide footnotes to explain any decisions to downgrade the quality of evidence.
Qualitative data.
We will follow the methods and recommendations of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group [54] and use the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation–Confidence in the Evidence from Qualitative Reviews (CERQual) approach to assess confidence in synthesised qualitative findings [64]. CERQual includes four domains: methodological limitations, relevance of contributing studies to the research question, coherence of study findings, and adequacy of data supporting the study findings. We will summarise findings of the four domains for each outcome and provide justification to explain any decisions to downgrade the quality of evidence.
Discussion
Remote consultation with limited face-to-face contact is likely to become an important component of global models of asthma care. Reviewing asthma by asynchronous digital health interventions has the potential to prompt timely intervention and improve several areas of asthma management such as disease disparity, medication adherence, patient-clinician communication, supported self-management and make future asthma management more proactive. Asynchronous digital interventions for reviewing asthma are likely to be convenient, but little is known about how this technology is being used, if/how it is acceptable and useful to patients, and if it is perceived as effective and safe by the professionals in different healthcare settings across the world. The findings of this review are expected to provide valuable insight into organising routine care for people living with asthma in the context of multiple modes of consulting in a way that benefits both patients and healthcare professionals.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the contribution of Marshall Dozier, College Lead for Library Academic Support at the University of Edinburgh, and Bohee Lee, Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research PhD student in helping develop the search strategy.
References
- 1. Dharmage SC, Perret JL, Custovic A. Epidemiology of asthma in children and adults. Frontiers in pediatrics. 2019;7:246. pmid:31275909
- 2. Global Initiative for Asthma. Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention, 2021. Available from: www.ginasthma.org.
- 3. British Guideline on the Management of Asthma. British Thoracic Society, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Thorax. 2008;63(Suppl 4):iv1–121.
- 4. Pinnock H, Parke HL, Panagioti M, Daines L, Pearce G, Epiphaniou E, et al. Systematic meta-review of supported self-management for asthma: a healthcare perspective. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):1–32.
- 5.
World Health Organization (WHO). Asthma Key Facts. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/asthma. Last accessed: 2nd September 2021.
- 6.
British Thoracic Society, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. British guideline on the management of asthma. London: British Thoracic Society. 2019;172.
- 7. Pinnock H, Fletcher M, Holmes S, Keeley D, Leyshon J, Price D, et al. Setting the standard for routine asthma consultations: a discussion of the aims, process and outcomes of reviewing people with asthma in primary care. Prim Care Respir J. 2010;19(1):75–83. pmid:20119630
- 8.
BTS/SIGN Guideline for the management of asthma 2019. https://www.brit-thoracic.org.uk/quality-improvement/guidelines/asthma/. Last accessed: 2nd December 2022.
- 9.
National Health Service (NHS): News 2019: Missed GP appointments costing NHS millions. https://www.england.nhs.uk/2019/01/missed-gp-appointments-costing-nhs-millions/. Last accessed: 15 February 2022.
- 10. McDonough B, Mault S. Non-attendance at a difficult-asthma clinic. Nursing Times. 2013;109(16):12–4. pmid:23697003
- 11. Morrow S, Daines L, Wiener-Ogilvie S, Steed L, McKee L, Caress AL, et al. Exploring the perspectives of clinical professionals and support staff on implementing supported self-management for asthma in UK general practice: an IMP(2)ART qualitative study. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2017;27(1):45. pmid:28720751
- 12. World Health Organization (WHO). Recommendations on digital interventions for health system strengthening–Evidence and recommendations (2019). https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-RHR-19.10.Last accessed: 20 June 2022.
- 13. Labrique A, Agarwal S, Tamrat T, Mehl G. WHO Digital Health Guidelines: a milestone for global health. npj Digital Medicine. 2020;3(1):120. pmid:33015373
- 14. World Health Organization (WHO). Fifty-Eighth World Health Assembly: Resolution WHA58.28 (2005). https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA58-REC1/english/A58_2005_REC1-en.pdf.Last accessed: 1st July 2022.
- 15.
Health 2020: A European policy framework and strategy for the 21st century. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/326386/9789289002790-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Last accessed: 2nd December 2022.
- 16. World Health Organization (WHO). Future of digital health systems: report on the WHO symposium on the future of digital health systems in the European region. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329032/9789289059992-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Last accessed: 1st July2022.
- 17.
The NHS Mandate. A mandate from the Government to the NHS Commissioning Board: April 2013 to March 2015. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/256497/13-15_mandate.pdf. Last accessed: 4th June 2022.
- 18. Kew KM, Cates CJ. Remote versus face‐to‐face check‐ups for asthma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016;4(4):Cd011715. pmid:27087257
- 19. Craig J, Patterson V. Introduction to the practice of telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare. 2005;11(1):3–9. pmid:15829036
- 20. Ryu S. Telemedicine: opportunities and developments in member states: report on the second global survey on eHealth 2009 (global observatory for eHealth series, volume 2). Healthc Inform Res. 2012;18(2):153–5.
- 21. The Health Foundation. How has the COVID-19 pandemic impacted primary care? https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/charts-and-infographics/how-has-the-covid-19-pandemic-impacted-primary-care. Last accessed: 8th August 2022.
- 22.
IPCRG Desktop Helper. Remote respiratory consultations. https://www.ipcrg.org/sites/ipcrg/files/content/attachments/2021-06-04/IPCRG_DTH11_Remote_Consultations.pdf. Last accessed: 8th August 2022.
- 23. Pinnock H, Bawden R, Proctor S, Wolfe S, Scullion J, Price D, et al. Accessibility, acceptability, and effectiveness in primary care of routine telephone review of asthma: pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2003;326(7387):477. pmid:12609944
- 24. Pinnock H, Adlem L, Gaskin S, Harris J, Snellgrove C, Sheikh A. Accessibility, clinical effectiveness, and practice costs of providing a telephone option for routine asthma reviews: phase IV controlled implementation study. Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57(542):714–22. pmid:17761059
- 25. Diedrich L, Dockweiler C. Video-based teleconsultations in pharmaceutical care–A systematic review. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2021;17(9):1523–31. pmid:33341405
- 26. Hamour O, Smyth E, Pinnock H. Completing asthma action plans by screen-sharing in video-consultations: practical insights from a feasibility assessment. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2020;30(1):1–5.
- 27. Shah AC, Badawy SM. Telemedicine in Pediatrics: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. JMIR Pediatr Parent. 2021;4(1):e22696. pmid:33556030
- 28. Murray E, Burns J, Tai SS, Lai R, Nazareth I. Interactive Health Communication Applications for people with chronic disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004(4). pmid:15495094
- 29. Chan A, De Simoni A, Wileman V, Holliday L, Newby CJ, Chisari C, et al. Digital interventions to improve adherence to maintenance medication in asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;6(6):Cd013030. pmid:35691614
- 30. Chongmelaxme B, Lee S, Dhippayom T, Saokaew S, Chaiyakunapruk N, Dilokthornsakul P. The Effects of Telemedicine on Asthma Control and Patients’ Quality of Life in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019;7(1):199–216.e11. pmid:30055283
- 31. Jeminiwa R, Hohmann L, Qian J, Garza K, Hansen R, Fox BI. Impact of eHealth on medication adherence among patients with asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Respir Med. 2019;149:59–68. pmid:30803887
- 32. Kew KM, Cates CJ. Home telemonitoring and remote feedback between clinic visits for asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2016(8):Cd011714. pmid:27486836
- 33. McLean G, Murray E, Band R, Moffat KR, Hanlon P, Bruton A, et al. Interactive digital interventions to promote self-management in adults with asthma: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pulm Med. 2016;16(1):83. pmid:27215329
- 34. McLean S, Chandler D, Nurmatov U, Liu J, Pagliari C, Car J, et al. Telehealthcare for asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010(10):Cd007717. pmid:20927763
- 35. Morrison D, Wyke S, Agur K, Cameron EJ, Docking RI, Mackenzie AM, et al. Digital asthma self-management interventions: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(2):e51. pmid:24550161
- 36. Mosnaim G, Safioti G, Brown R, DePietro M, Szefler SJ, Lang DM, et al. Digital Health Technology in Asthma: A Comprehensive Scoping Review. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9(6):2377–98. pmid:33652136
- 37. Snoswell CL, Rahja M, Lalor AF. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Change in Health-Related Quality of Life for Interactive Telehealth Interventions for Patients With Asthma. Value Health. 2020;24(2):291–302. pmid:33518036
- 38. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Last accessed: 20 June 2022.
- 39. Noyes J, Booth A, Moore G, Flemming K, Tunçalp Ö, Shakibazadeh E. Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(Suppl 1):e000893. pmid:30775016
- 40.
Wikipedia 3G History. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3G. Last accessed: 5th June 2022.
- 41. Fung IC. Citation of non-English peer review publications–some Chinese examples. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2008;5(1):12. pmid:18826566
- 42. Van Nes F, Abma T, Jonsson H, Deeg D. Language differences in qualitative research: is meaning lost in translation?. Eur J Ageing. 2010 Dec;7(4):313–6. pmid:21212820
- 43. Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. Bmj. 2005;331(7524):1064–5. pmid:16230312
- 44.
Systematic Review Accelerator—Deduplicator. https://sr-accelerator.com/#/deduplicator. Last accessed: 5th June 2022.
- 45.
Covidence. Cochrane Community. https://community.cochrane.org/help/tools-and-software/covidence. Last accessed: 5th June 2022.
- 46. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9, w64. pmid:19622511
- 47. Nathan RA, Sorkness CA, Kosinski M, Schatz M, Li JT, Marcus P, et al. Development of the asthma control test: a survey for assessing asthma control. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2004;113(1):59–65. pmid:14713908
- 48. Juniper E, Guyatt G, Cox F, Ferrie P, King D. Development and validation of the mini asthma quality of life questionnaire. European Respiratory Journal. 1999;14(1):32–8. pmid:10489826
- 49. Holguin F, Cardet JC, Chung KF, Diver S, Ferreira DS, Fitzpatrick A, et al. Management of severe asthma: a European respiratory society/American thoracic society guideline. Eur Respir J. 2020;55(1). pmid:31558662
- 50. Higgins JPT, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
- 51. Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52(6):377–84. pmid:9764259
- 52. Pinnock H, Epiphaniou E, Pearce G, Parke H, Greenhalgh T, Sheikh A, et al. Implementing supported self-management for asthma: a systematic review and suggested hierarchy of evidence of implementation studies. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):1–18. pmid:26032941
- 53.
CASP Checklist: 10 questions to help you make sense of a Qualitative research. https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist-2018.pdf.Last accessed: 7th June 2022.
- 54. Noyes J, Booth A, Flemming K, Garside R, Harden A, Lewin S, et al. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:49–58.
- 55.
Pluye P, Robert E, Cargo M, Bartlett G, O’cathain A, Griffiths F, et al. Proposal: A mixed methods appraisal tool for systematic mixed studies reviews. Montréal: McGill University. 2011;2:1–8.
- 56. Popay J, Baldwin S, Arai L, Britten N, Petticrew M, Rogers M. Narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. Methods Briefing. 2007;22.
- 57. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8(1):45. pmid:18616818
- 58. Noyes J, Booth A, Cargo M, Flemming K, Harden A, Harris J, et al. Chapter 21: Qualitative evidence. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Last accessed: 20 June 2022.
- 59. Harden A, Thomas J, Cargo M, Harris J, Pantoja T, Flemming K, et al. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:70–8. pmid:29242095
- 60. Candy B, Jones L, Drake R, Leurent B, King M. Interventions for supporting informal caregivers of patients in the terminal phase of a disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011(6):Cd007617. pmid:21678368
- 61. Hurley M, Dickson K, Hallett R, Grant R, Hauari H, Walsh N, et al. Exercise interventions and patient beliefs for people with hip, knee or hip and knee osteoarthritis: a mixed methods review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018(4). pmid:29664187
- 62. Schünemann HJ, Vist GE, Higgins JP, Santesso N, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, et al. Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2019:403–31.
- 63.
GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [Software]. McMaster University and Evidence Prime, 2021. Available from gradepro.org.
- 64. Lewin S, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Carlsen B, Colvin CJ, Gülmezoglu M, et al. Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Med. 2015;12(10):e1001895. pmid:26506244