Open AccessRemote Follow-Up Technologies in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Scoping Review
Author(s) -
Brandon George Smith,
Staša Tumpa,
Orla Mantle,
Charlotte Jane Whiffin,
Harry Mee,
Davi Jorge Fontoura Solla,
Wellingson Silva Paiva,
Virginia Newcombe,
Angelos Kolias,
Peter J. Hutchinson
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
journal of neurotrauma
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.653
H-Index - 149
eISSN - 1557-9042
pISSN - 0897-7151
DOI - 10.1089/neu.2022.0138
Subject(s) - psycinfo , traumatic brain injury , medicine , telemedicine , medline , cinahl , poison control , injury prevention , occupational safety and health , population , telehealth , medical emergency , physical therapy , health care , psychological intervention , psychiatry , environmental health , pathology , political science , law , economics , economic growth
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Motivations for outcome data collection in TBI are threefold: to improve patient outcomes, to facilitate research, and to provide the means and methods for wider injury surveillance. Such data play a pivotal role in population health, and ways to increase the reliability of data collection following TBI should be pursued. As a result, technology-aided follow-up of patients with neurotrauma is on the rise; there is, therefore, a need to describe how such technologies have been used. A scoping review was conducted and reported using the PRISMA extension (PRISMA-ScR). Five electronic databases (Embase, MEDLINE, Global Health, PsycInfo, and Scopus) were searched systematically using keywords derived from the concepts of "telemedicine," "TBI," "outcome assessment," and "patient-generated health data." Forty studies described follow-up technologies (FUTs) utilizing telephones (52.5%, n = 21), short message service (SMS; 10%, n = 4), smartphones (22.5%, n = 9), videoconferencing (10%, n = 4), digital assistants (2.5%, n = 1), and custom devices (2.5%, n = 1) among cohorts of patients with TBI of varying injury severity. Where reported, clinical facilitators, remote follow-up timing and intervals between sessions, synchronicity of follow-up instances, proxy involvement, outcome measures utilized, and technology evaluation efforts are described. FUTs can aid more temporally sensitive assessments and capture fluctuating sequelae, a benefit of particular relevance to TBI cohorts. However, the evidence base surrounding FUTs remains in its infancy, particularly with respect to large samples, low- and middle-income patient cohorts, and the validation of outcome measures for deployment via such remote technology.