Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2013 Feb 26:346:f653.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.f653.

Effect of telehealth on quality of life and psychological outcomes over 12 months (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested study of patient reported outcomes in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial

Collaborators, Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effect of telehealth on quality of life and psychological outcomes over 12 months (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested study of patient reported outcomes in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial

Martin Cartwright et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To assess the effect of second generation, home based telehealth on health related quality of life, anxiety, and depressive symptoms over 12 months in patients with long term conditions.

Design: A study of patient reported outcomes (the Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study; baseline n=1573) was nested in a pragmatic, cluster randomised trial of telehealth (the Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth trial, n=3230). General practice was the unit of randomisation, and telehealth was compared with usual care. Data were collected at baseline, four months (short term), and 12 months (long term). Primary intention to treat analyses tested treatment effectiveness; multilevel models controlled for clustering by general practice and a range of covariates. Analyses were conducted for 759 participants who completed questionnaire measures at all three time points (complete case cohort) and 1201 who completed the baseline assessment plus at least one other assessment (available case cohort). Secondary per protocol analyses tested treatment efficacy and included 633 and 1108 participants in the complete case and available case cohorts, respectively.

Setting: Provision of primary and secondary care via general practices, specialist nurses, and hospital clinics in three diverse regions of England (Cornwall, Kent, and Newham), with established integrated health and social care systems.

Participants: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, or heart failure recruited between May 2008 and December 2009.

Main outcome measures: Generic, health related quality of life (assessed by physical and mental health component scores of the SF-12, and the EQ-5D), anxiety (assessed by the six item Brief State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), and depressive symptoms (assessed by the 10 item Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale).

Results: In the intention to treat analyses, differences between treatment groups were small and non-significant for all outcomes in the complete case (0.480 ≤ P ≤ 0.904) or available case (0.181 ≤ P ≤ 0.905) cohorts. The magnitude of differences between trial arms did not reach the trial defined, minimal clinically important difference (0.3 standardised mean difference) for any outcome in either cohort at four or 12 months. Per protocol analyses replicated the primary analyses; the main effect of trial arm (telehealth v usual care) was non-significant for any outcome (complete case cohort 0.273 ≤ P ≤ 0.761; available case cohort 0.145 ≤ P ≤ 0.696).

Conclusions: Second generation, home based telehealth as implemented in the Whole Systems Demonstrator Evaluation was not effective or efficacious compared with usual care only. Telehealth did not improve quality of life or psychological outcomes for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, or heart failure over 12 months. The findings suggest that concerns about potentially deleterious effect of telehealth are unfounded for most patients.

Trial registration: ISRCTN43002091.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: support from the Department of Health and the University College London Hospitals and University College London; several authors have undertaken evaluative work funded by government or public agencies but these have not created competing interests; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

None
Fig 1 CONSORT diagram of the WSD telehealth trial and WSD telehealth questionnaire study. *Recruitment into the questionnaire study was implemented at the patient level, but descriptive data at the cluster level (general practice) are presented for comparison with the parent trial. †Allocated treatment based on the installation of any telehealth device (pulse oximeter, glucometer, weighing scales, or blood pressure monitor) regardless of participant’s diagnosed condition. ‡Allocated treatment based on the installation of at least one “critical” telehealth device for a diagnosed condition (web appendix 2). §Second set of brackets show number of active practices, and median number and range of participants per practice
None
Fig 2 Composition of baseline sample, by diagnosis of long term condition. COPD=chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
None
Fig 3 Overview of WSD telehealth intervention. Numbers indicate stages described in web appendix 2
None
Fig 4 Outcomes for complete case cohort (n=759). Short term assessment at four months, long term assessment at 12 months
None
Fig 5 Outcomes for available case cohort (n=1201). Short term assessment at four months, long term assessment at 12 months
None
Fig 6 Standardised adjusted effect sizes for intention to treat analysis, complete case cohort. Effect sizes (mean differences) were calculated at short term and long term, on the basis of EMMs. Web table 3 shows numbers for each arm at each assessment point. Unstandardised mean differences represent the estimated (adjusted) magnitude of difference between arms in the original scale metric. Standardised mean differences allow for direct comparisons across different outcomes. These standardardised mean differences were calculated with a correction for sample size (Hedge’s g), and are interpreted in the same way as Cohen’s d
None
Fig 7 Standardised adjusted effect sizes for intention to treat analysis, available case cohort. Web table 3 shows numbers for each arm at each assessment point
None
Fig 8 Standardised adjusted effect sizes for per protocol analysis, complete case cohort. Web table 4 shows numbers for each arm at each assessment point
None
Fig 9 Standardised adjusted effect sizes for per protocol analysis, available case cohort. Web table 4 shows numbers for each arm at each assessment point

References

    1. Christensen K, Doblhammer G, Rau R, Vaupel JW. Ageing populations: the challenges ahead. Lancet 2009;374:1196-208. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Office for National Statistics. The interactive population pyramid. 2011. www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc1/UKPyramid.html.
    1. Spillman BC, Lubitz J. The effect of longevity on spending for acute and long-term care. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1409-15. - PubMed
    1. Robine J-M, Romieu I, Michel J. Trends in health expectancies. In: Robine J-M, Jagger C, Mathers C, Crimmins EM, Suzman R, eds. Determining health expectancies. John Wiley and Sons, 2003:75-104.
    1. Doblhammer G, Kytir J. Compression or expansion of morbidity? Trends in healthy-life expectancy in the elderly Austrian population between 1978 and 1998. Soc Sci Med 2001;52:385-91. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms