eHealth in the support of people with mild intellectual disability in daily life: A systematic review.
Cathelijn E M Oudshoorn, Noud Frielink, Sara L P Nijs and 1 others
PMID 32578361WHAT IT FOUND
Most studies did not ask people with mild intellectual disability what they needed or wanted before choosing an eHealth tool.
Interventions were often delivered by researchers in schools, not by support staff or family in the home, limiting real-world applicability.
Key findings
01Only one study systematically assessed participants' needs before starting the eHealth intervention.
02In half of the studies, the eHealth intervention was performed by the researchers themselves rather than by existing support staff or family members.
03Most studies did not report participants' expectations or perceptions of the eHealth technology.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only English-language studies were included. Most included studies had weak or adequate research report strength, particularly the group designs. The review could not perform a meta-analysis because outcome measures varied too widely across studies. Many studies did not report whether participants had prior digital experience or skills.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the 'promising' label applied to the evidence base as proof that these eHealth tools work in routine clinical practice. The review found that most studies were small, often conducted by researchers in educational settings, and rarely involved the support staff or family who would maintain the intervention in daily life.