To compare clinical efficacy of standard outpatient follow-up of hypertensive patients with efficacy of such follow-up with application of internet techniques and mobile telephone systems (ITMTS).
Two groups of hypertensive patients were examined: group 1 (n=97, 45% females, age 49 +/- 11 years) on one-year ITMTS follow-up; group 2 (n=102, 50% females, age 51 +/- 11 years) on standard one-year follow-up. Clinical efficacy was assessed by the rate of achievement and maintenance of target blood pressure, dynamics of modifiable risk factors (smoking, obesity) for a year.
Withdrawal in group 1 was 36%, target blood pressure was achieved in 77% patients vs. 12% in group 2 (p < 0.001).
Introduction of ITMTS technologies into outpatient clinics activity considerably raises efficacy of outpatient treatment of hypertensive patients.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Innovative effective smoking cessation interventions are required to appeal to those who are not accessing traditional cessation services. Mobile phones are widely used and are now well integrated into the daily lives of many, particularly young adults. Mobile phones are a potential medium for the delivery of health programmes such as smoking cessation.
To determine whether mobile phone-based interventions are effective at helping people who smoke, to quit.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cinahl, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, the National Research Register and the ClinicalTrials register, with no restrictions placed on language or publication date.
We included randomized or quasi-randomized trials. Participants were smokers of any age who wanted to quit. Studies were those examining any type of mobile phone-based intervention. This included any intervention aimed at mobile phone users, based around delivery via mobile phone, and using any functions or applications that can be used or sent via a mobile phone.
Information on the specified quality criteria and methodological details was extracted using a standardised form. Participants who dropped out of the trials or were lost to follow up were considered to be smoking. Meta-analysis of the included studies was undertaken using the Mantel-Haenszel Risk Ratio fixed-effect method provided that there was no evidence of substantial statistical heterogeneity as assessed by the I(2) statistic. Where meta-analysis was not possible, summary and descriptive statistics are presented.
Four studies were excluded as they were small non-randomized feasibility studies, and two studies were excluded because follow up was less than six months. Four trials (reported in five papers) are included: a text message programme in New Zealand; a text message programme in the UK; and an Internet and mobile phone programme involving two different groups in Norway. The different types of interventions are analysed separately. When combined by meta-analysis the text message programme trials showed a significant increase in short-term self-reported quitting (RR 2.18, 95% CI 1.80 to 2.65). However, there was considerable heterogeneity in long-term outcomes, with the much larger trial having problems with misclassification of outcomes; therefore these data were not combined. When the data from the Internet and mobile phone programmes were pooled we found statistically significant increases in both short and long-term self-reported quitting (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.94).
The current evidence shows no effect of mobile phone-based smoking cessation interventions on long-term outcome. While short-term results are positive, more rigorous studies of the long-term effects of mobile phone-based smoking cessation interventions are needed.
São Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina 01/2010; 128(2):106-7. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD006611.pub2 · 0.72 Impact Factor
Note: This list is based on the publications in our database and might not be exhaustive.