Cited by 499Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDiabetes Management and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 78 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 2 are not checked yet; none of the 288 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Telehealth Interventions to Support Self-Management of Long-Term Conditions: A Systematic Metareview of Diabetes, Heart Failure, Asthma, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and Cancer

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Self-management support is one mechanism by which telehealth interventions have been proposed to facilitate management of long-term conditions. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this metareview were to (1) assess the impact of telehealth interventions to support self-management on disease control and health care utilization, and (2) identify components of telehealth support and their impact on disease control and the process of self-management. Our goal was to synthesise evidence for telehealth-supported self-management of diabetes (types 1 and 2), heart failure, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cancer to identify components of effective self-management support. METHODS: We performed a metareview (a systematic review of systematic reviews) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of telehealth interventions to support self-management in 6 exemplar long-term conditions. We searched 7 databases for reviews published from January 2000 to May 2016 and screened identified studies against eligibility criteria. We weighted reviews by quality (revised A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews), size, and relevance. We then combined our results in a narrative synthesis and using harvest plots. RESULTS: We included 53 systematic reviews, comprising 232 unique RCTs. Reviews concerned diabetes (type 1: n=6; type 2, n=11; mixed, n=19), heart failure (n=9), asthma (n=8), COPD (n=8), and cancer (n=3). Findings varied between and within disease areas. The highest-weighted reviews showed that blood glucose telemonitoring with feedback and some educational and lifestyle interventions improved glycemic control in type 2, but not type 1, diabetes, and that telemonitoring and telephone interventions reduced mortality and hospital admissions in heart failure, but these findings were not consistent in all reviews. Results for the other conditions were mixed, although no reviews showed evidence of harm. Analysis of the mediating role of self-management, and of components of successful interventions, was limited and inconclusive. More intensive and multifaceted interventions were associated with greater improvements in diabetes, heart failure, and asthma. CONCLUSIONS: While telehealth-mediated self-management was not consistently superior to usual care, none of the reviews reported any negative effects, suggesting that telehealth is a safe option for delivery of self-management support, particularly in conditions such as heart failure and type 2 diabetes, where the evidence base is more developed. Larger-scale trials of telehealth-supported self-management, based on explicit self-management theory, are needed before the extent to which telehealth technologies may be harnessed to support self-management can be established.

Checked 2026-10-06 · 2 references not checked yet

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This metareview synthesized 53 systematic reviews (231 unique RCTs per Results; abstract says 232) of telehealth interventions to support self-management in diabetes, heart failure, asthma, COPD, and cancer. Evidence was inconsistent and no single self-management component was consistently effective, but no reviews reported harm, with the strongest support in type 2 diabetes and heart failure.

Key findings

  • Included 53 systematic reviews comprising 231 unique RCTs (119 diabetes, 58 heart failure, 28 asthma, 23 COPD, 3 cancer); the abstract reports 232 unique RCTs. Findings varied between and within disease areas.
  • Highest-weighted reviews showed blood glucose telemonitoring with feedback and some educational/lifestyle interventions improved glycemic control in type 2, but not type 1, diabetes; telemonitoring and telephone interventions reduced mortality and hospital admissions in heart failure, though findings were not consistent in all reviews.
  • No reviews showed evidence of harm; results for asthma, COPD, and cancer were mixed, and more intensive/multifaceted interventions were associated with greater improvements in diabetes, heart failure, and asthma.
  • Analysis of the mediating role of self-management and of components of successful interventions was limited and inconclusive; no single self-management component was consistently effective or ineffective.

Methods

  • Metareview (systematic review of systematic reviews) of RCTs of telehealth interventions to support self-management in 6 long-term conditions; searched 7 databases for reviews published January 2000 to May 2016.
  • Included 53 reviews; quality assessed with R-AMSTAR (scores 19–43 out of 44) and weighted by quality, size, and explicit self-management focus (8 reviews 3 stars, 23 reviews 2 stars, 21 reviews 1 star, 1 review no stars).
  • Because RCT overlap precluded meta-analysis, findings were combined in narrative synthesis and harvest plots; data were extracted from reviews, not individual RCTs, covering disease control, health care utilization, self-management process, and quality-of-life outcomes.

Limitations

  • Stated: metareview lag risks outdated results; reliance on review authors’ interpretation; inability to adjust for geography, age, or socioeconomic variables; RCT overlap risks overrepresenting some trials; only 6 conditions were considered; inclusion of reviews with implied self-management focus was potentially subjective; few reviews assessed publication bias.
  • Stated: most reviews did not analyze intervention intensity or specific components, limiting conclusions about which components or combinations are most beneficial.
  • Evident from the text: the abstract and Results report different unique RCT counts (232 vs 231); heterogeneity and poor intervention reporting limit component analysis; harvest plot rules may overlook individual RCTs.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/jmir.6688

Cites

76 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 288 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 101 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 78
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 50
109 of 109
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The included systematic reviews adequately assessed and reported harms or negative effects, so the absence of reported harm indicates that telehealth is safe.

    “none of the reviews reported any negative effects”
    “no reviews showed evidence of harm”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The extent to which telehealth effectively promotes self-management, and the components of telehealth interventions that contribute to this goal, remain unclear.

    “The extent to which telehealth effectively promotes self-management, and the components of telehealth interventions that contribute to this goal, remain unclear.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The included reviews' findings can be meaningfully combined in a narrative synthesis and harvest plots despite heterogeneity in outcomes and methods.

    “we therefore undertook a narrative synthesis”
    “We used harvest plots to illustrate the disease control outcomes related to telehealth-supported self-management components [17,18].”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The included systematic reviews collectively provide a sufficiently complete and unbiased evidence base for the metareview's conclusions about telehealth for self-management of the six conditions.

    “By relying on systematic review findings, the evidence is 1 step removed from the empirical evidence, and thus reliant on the interpretation of the review authors.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The six selected long-term conditions are representative enough to generalize the metareview's conclusions about telehealth for self-management to long-term conditions more broadly.

    “This metareview considered only 6 long-term conditions and may have reached different conclusions had we selected a different set of conditions.”
5 of 5

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • COPD mortality review designs do not match their descriptions

    Minor

    The four included reviews cited for COPD mortality are 65, 66, 68, and 69. The text elsewhere identifies 65 and 66 as narrative syntheses and 68 and 69 as meta-analyses, contradicting the stated split of three meta-analyses and one narrative synthesis.

  • Conflicting counts of unique RCTs

    Minor

    The abstract reports 232 unique RCTs, while the Results reports 231. The disease-specific counts in the Results also sum to 231.

  • Cancer reviews' star weightings conflict with the weighting list

    Minor

    The cancer section says both reviews were weighted 2 stars, but the earlier weighting list assigns review 21 three stars and review 70 one star.

3 of 3

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 78 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Taylor, S, 2014, Southampton (UK); NIHR Journals Library, 1
  2. 2009, Ont Health Technol Assess Ser, 9, 1
  3. Jaana, M, 2009, Am J Manag Care, 15, 313
  4. Franek, J, 2012, Ont Health Technol Assess Ser, 12, 1
  5. 10.1016/j.pop.2012.03.005 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 498

Metadata

Authors
Hanlon, P., Daines, L., Campbell, C., McKinstry, B., Weller, D., & Pinnock, H.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Pinnock, Hilary
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2017-05-17
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
e172
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2609520421
Cited by
499
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 67 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 5
FWCI
6.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-DG-1213-10008, 11/1014/04)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
self-management support, chronic disease, diabetes mellitus, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, heart failure, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer, glycemic control, hospitalization, mortality, health care utilization, intervention components, telephone-delivered intervention, educational intervention, lifestyle intervention, mediating role
MeSH terms
Self-Management, Asthma, Chronic Disease, Delivery of Health Care, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Heart Failure, Humans, Neoplasms, Telemedicine, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review