↓ Skip to main content

Telehealth Interventions Delivering Home-based Support Group Videoconferencing: Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Internet Research, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
22 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
657 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Telehealth Interventions Delivering Home-based Support Group Videoconferencing: Systematic Review
Published in
Journal of Medical Internet Research, February 2018
DOI 10.2196/jmir.8090
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Group therapy and education and support sessions are used within health care across a range of disciplines such as chronic disease self-management and psychotherapy interventions. However, there are barriers that constrain group attendance, such as mobility, time, and distance. Using videoconferencing may overcome known barriers and improve the accessibility of group-based interventions. The aim of this study was to review the literature to determine the feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness, and implementation of health professional-led group videoconferencing to provide education or social support or both, into the home setting. Electronic databases were searched using predefined search terms for primary interventions for patient education and/or social support. The quality of studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We developed an analysis framework using hierarchical terms feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness, and implementation, which were informed by subheadings. Of the 1634 records identified, 17 were included in this review. Home-based groups by videoconferencing are feasible even for those with limited digital literacy. Overall acceptability was high with access from the home highly valued and little concern of privacy issues. Some participants reported preferring face-to-face groups. Good information technology (IT) support and training is required for facilitators and participants. Communication can be adapted for the Web environment and would be enhanced by clear communication strategies and protocols. A range of improved outcomes were reported but because of the heterogeneity of studies, comparison of these across studies was not possible. There was a trend for improvement in mental health outcomes. Benefits highlighted in the qualitative data included engaging with others with similar problems; improved accessibility to groups; and development of health knowledge, insights, and skills. Videoconference groups were able to replicate group processes such as bonding and cohesiveness. Similar outcomes were reported for those comparing face-to-face groups and videoconference groups. Groups delivered by videoconference are feasible and potentially can improve the accessibility of group interventions. This may be particularly useful for those who live in rural areas, have limited mobility, are socially isolated, or fear meeting new people. Outcomes are similar to in-person groups, but future research on facilitation process in videoconferencing-mediated groups and large-scale studies are required to develop the evidence base.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 657 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 657 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 63 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 8%
Researcher 51 8%
Student > Bachelor 44 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 33 5%
Other 123 19%
Unknown 290 44%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 79 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 63 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 59 9%
Social Sciences 55 8%
Arts and Humanities 11 2%
Other 83 13%
Unknown 307 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2024.
All research outputs
#1,795,146
of 34,251,523 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#1,288
of 10,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,057
of 491,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#26
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,251,523 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,670 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 491,638 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.