Background: eHealth offers opportunities to improve health and healthcare systems and overcome primary care challenges in low-resource settings (LRS). LRS has been typically associated with low-... Show moreBackground: eHealth offers opportunities to improve health and healthcare systems and overcome primary care challenges in low-resource settings (LRS). LRS has been typically associated with low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), but they can be found in high-income countries (HIC) when human, physical or financial resources are constrained. Adopting a concept of LRS that applies to LMIC and HIC can facilitate knowledge interchange between eHealth initiatives while improving healthcare provision for socioeconomically disadvantaged groups across the globe.Objectives: To outline the contributions and challenges of eHealth in low-resource primary care settings.Strategy: We adopt a socio-ecological understanding of LRS, making LRS relevant to LMIC and HIC. To assess the potential of eHealth in primary care settings, we discuss four case studies according to the WHO 'building blocks for strengthening healthcare systems'.Results and discussion: The case studies illustrate eHealth's potential to improve the provision of healthcare by i) improving the delivery of healthcare (using AI-generated chats); ii) supporting the workforce (using telemedicine platforms); iii) strengthening the healthcare information system (through patient-centred healthcare information systems), and iv) improving system-related elements of healthcare (through a mobile health financing platform). Nevertheless, we found that development and implementation are hindered by user-related, technical, financial, regulatory and evaluation challenges. We formulated six recommendations to help anticipate or overcome these challenges: 1) evaluate eHealth's appropriateness, 2) know the end users, 3) establish evaluation methods, 4) prioritise the human component, 5) profit from collaborations, ensure sustainable financing and local ownership, 6) and contextualise and evaluate the implementation strategies. Show less
Background: Worldwide, insomnia remains a highly prevalent public health problem. eHealth presents a novel opportunity to deliver effective, accessible, and affordable insomnia treatments on a... Show moreBackground: Worldwide, insomnia remains a highly prevalent public health problem. eHealth presents a novel opportunity to deliver effective, accessible, and affordable insomnia treatments on a population-wide scale. However, there is no quantitative integration of evidence regarding the effectiveness of eHealth-based psychosocial interventions on insomnia. Objective: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of eHealth-based psychosocial interventions for insomnia and investigate the influence of specific study characteristics and intervention features on these effects. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception to February 16, 2021, for publications investigating eHealth-based psychosocial interventions targeting insomnia and updated the search of PubMed to December 6, 2021. We also screened gray literature for unpublished data. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials of eHealth-based psychosocial interventions targeting adults with insomnia. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to assess primary and secondary outcomes. Primary outcomes were insomnia severity and sleep quality. Meta-analyses were performed by pooling the effects of eHealth-based psychosocial interventions on insomnia compared with inactive and in-person conditions. We performed subgroup analyses and metaregressions to explore specific factors that affected the effectiveness. Secondary outcomes included sleep diary parameters and mental health-related outcomes. Results: Of the 19,980 identified records, 37 randomized controlled trials (13,227 participants) were included. eHealth-based psychosocial interventions significantly reduced insomnia severity (Hedges g=-1.01, 95% CI -1.12 to -0.89; P<.001) and improved sleep quality (Hedges g=-0.58, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.41; P<.001) compared with inactive control conditions, with no evidence of publication bias. We found no significant difference compared with in-person treatment in alleviating insomnia severity (Hedges g=0.41, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.85; P=.06) and a significant advantage for in-person treatment in enhancing sleep quality (Hedges g=0.56, 95% CI 0.24-0.88; P<.001). eHealth-based psychosocial interventions had significantly larger effects (P=.01) on alleviating insomnia severity in clinical samples than in subclinical samples. eHealth-based psychosocial interventions that incorporated guidance from trained therapists had a significantly greater effect on insomnia severity (P=.05) and sleep quality (P=.02) than those with guidance from animated therapists or no guidance. Higher baseline insomnia severity and longer intervention duration were associated with a larger reduction in insomnia severity (P=.004). eHealth-based psychosocial interventions significantly improved each secondary outcome. Conclusions: eHealth interventions for insomnia are effective in improving sleep and mental health and can be considered a promising treatment for insomnia. Our findings support the wider dissemination of eHealth interventions and their further promotion in a stepped-care model. Offering blended care could improve treatment effectiveness. Future research needs to elucidate which specific intervention components are most important to achieve intervention effectiveness. Blended eHealth interventions may be tailored to benefit people with low socioeconomic status, limited access to health care, or lack of eHealth literacy. Show less
