Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 42679838

Effectiveness of digital health technologies for post-discharge follow-up and management in older adults: a systematic review.

Abstract

Older adults (≥65 years) are a rapidly growing population that are experiencing a higher number of hospitalisation admissions, longer hospital stays, and greater hospitalisation-related costs than younger adults. There is an important gap in post-discharge care for older adults, and digital technologies, such as video visits, mobile health apps, and remote patient monitoring, may support follow-up and management after hospital discharge. This systematic review examined the effectiveness, feasibility, acceptability, and impact (ie, effects on rehospitalisation, quality of life, mental health, adherence, and patient satisfaction) of technology-based interventions used for the follow-up and management of older adults after hospital discharge. MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from database inception to January, 2026. The search identified 1972 records, of which 46 studies met the inclusion criteria: older adult populations (aged ≥65 years), a technology-based intervention, post-discharge follow-up or management, and empirical data. Overall, digital post-discharge interventions were reported to be feasible, with good engagement, adherence, compliance, and retention; low dropout rates; and positive patient satisfaction. However, mixed findings were reported regarding rehospitalisation rates and mental health outcomes for virtual care compared with those for traditional care. Digital health technologies might represent a promising step towards improving post-discharge health care and continuity of care for older adults.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Harmehr Sekhon, Ariane Lajoie, Sarah Aly, Sasha Elbaz, Kerman Sekhon, Reuben Sidlofsky, Vincent Paquin, Brent P Forester, Julia Chabot, Germain Honvo, Martin Curley, Tarek K Rajji. 2026-09-01. Effectiveness of digital health technologies for post-discharge follow-up and management in older adults: a systematic review.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanhl.2026.100885

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

The application of artificial intelligence in healthcare practice: A mapping review of systematic reviews.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming healthcare practice, with growing evidence supporting its use in diagnosis, prognosis, treatment planning, and operational decision-making. The proliferation of systematic reviews in recent years underscores the need for an updated synthesis of the literature to inform research, policy, and practice. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and CINAHL for systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2019 and February 2026. Eligible reviews focused on AI applications in healthcare practice, were peer-reviewed, and written in English. A total of 368 reviews met the inclusion criteria. Publication volume increased steadily, peaking in 2025. AI research was concentrated in high-density domains, such as radiology, oncology, and critical care. Across reviews, diagnostic imaging, electronic health record (EHR) data, and biomarkers/laboratory results accounted for 68% of training data sources, though newer data types, such as wearable device and sensor data, emerged from 2022 onward. Diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment comprised over 80% of AI applications, with novel uses emerging in recent years, such as AI-assisted clinical documentation (e.g., ambient documentation tools) and patient education. Ethical concerns were reported in 78.5% of reviews, with privacy, model accuracy, data and algorithmic bias, and explainability as recurrent themes. The proportion of reviews reporting ethical concerns increased from 2021 to 2025. AI applications in healthcare are expanding in scope, diversifying in data sources, and evolving toward novel clinical and operational uses. The human-centered AI or augmented intelligence paradigm, integrating computational precision with clinical expertise, holds significant promise but will require parallel advances in governance, regulatory frameworks, and ethical oversight to ensure safe adoption.

Artificial Intelligence

Association of media use with sleep of children and adolescents: an umbrella review.

Adequate sleep is essential for child and adolescent development, driving extensive research across scientific disciplines. This umbrella review provides a comprehensive overview of existing evidence on media consumption and sleep and thereby lays the foundation for identifying key concepts and gaps. An inclusive systematic search for reviews reporting literature searches was conducted in 02/2021 and updated last in 09/2024. Methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using AMSTAR-2. We included 84 reviews reporting on the association between media use and sleep in individuals aged 0-18 years. The field is dominated by reviews of low methodological quality, mainly including original cross-sectional studies with subjective measures in older children and adolescents. A total of 475 original articles were covered by the reviews; only 10 of them appeared in at least seven and at most nine reviews. Screen time generally had a negative impact on sleep, though evidence varied from very low to strong. Evidence for effects of conventional books on sleep remains inconclusive. High quality systematic reviews are needed to evaluate robust studies using objective measures of sleep and contemporary media use across all age groups up to adolescence and to explore the impact of non-digital media use on sleep, considering age and gender differences.

Humans

What's the meta now? More updates on the problems with systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are intended to provide trustworthy evidence synthesis, yet previous iterations of this living review have identified numerous recurring problems in their conduct and reporting. This article presents the third version and second update of the living systematic review examining issues raised across the academic literature. METHODS: Using consistent eligibility criteria and methods from earlier versions, literature searches were updated to May 2025. Eligible meta-research and editorial articles describing problems with systematic reviews were analyzed to identify emerging themes. Additionally, four basic indicators of methodological quality of the included meta-research were presented across review versions. RESULTS: The update included 209 additional articles. Critically low methodological quality and absence of protocols remained among the most frequently reported issues in systematic reviews across disciplines and journals but notably in evidence underpinning clinical practice guidelines. Spin in abstracts and conflicts of interest continued to be common. Apparent improvements in reporting quality were inconsistent, with modest gains in some full-text reporting but persistent deficiencies in abstracts. Authorship diversity of systematic reviews improved in gender representation but remained geographically concentrated in high-income countries, and primary research included in reviews similarly lacked global representativeness. The issue of misalignment between systematic review evidence bases and global burden of disease bring the total number of problems with systematic reviews to 69. Emerging use of automation and artificial intelligence was variably reported. Descriptive comparison of meta-research articles over the three versions of this living review suggests a greater proportion meeting basic quality indicators in more recent updates. CONCLUSION: Across successive updates, problems with systematic reviews remain widespread and consistent rather than isolated. Incremental reporting improvements coexist with persistent concerns about transparency, bias, and representativeness. Future efforts should prioritize evaluating interventions and aligning research incentives to support genuinely trustworthy evidence synthesis.

Humans