eHealth solutions to fight against COVID-19: A scoping review of applications

Parisa Eslami, Sharareh R. Niakan Kalhori, Moloud Taheriyan
2021 Medical Journal of The Islamic Republic of Iran  
↑What is "already known" in this topic: According to earlier studies, ehealth has various pandemic control applications due to the contagious nature of this virus and the need for physical distancing to reduce the transmission rate. As a response to this need, several papers were published in recent months on the usage or implementation of eHealth solutions to aid in combat the Covid-19 global health crisis. →What this article adds: According to this study's findings, eHealth solutions can
more » ... de useful services to help in pandemics in terms of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, screening, surveillance, resource allocation, education, management, and control. Telehealth, mHealth, health information technology, and health data analytics are the most implemented or suggested subdomains of ehealth solutions to support different aspects of COVID-19 pandemic control. Abstract Background: eHealth has a notable potential to help in prevention, diagnosis, treatment, screening, management, and control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since ehealth is considered here broadly, as an umbrella term, it also covers subsets like telehealth and mhealth. This study aimed to review the literature to identify and classify subdomains of eHealth solutions that have been utilized, developed, or suggested for the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed using the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane library databases in April 2020, with no time limitation. The search strategy was built based on 2 concept domains of eHealth solutions and covid-19. For each concept domain, the search query comprised a combination of free text keywords identified from reference papers and controlled vocabulary terms. Obtained results were classified, graphically presented, and discussed. Results: Of the 423 studies identified initially, 35 were included in this study. From related papers, general characteristics, study objective, eHealth-related outcomes, target populations, eHealth interventions, health service category, eHealth solution, and eHealth domain were extracted, classified, and tabulated. Most publication types were ideas, editorials, or opinions (46%). The most targeted populations were people of the community and medical staff (80%). The most implemented or suggested eHealth solution was telehealth (63%), followed by mhealth, health information technology, and health data analytics. Most of the COVID-19 ehealth interventions designed or suggested for improving prevention (48%) and diagnosis (48%). Most of the studies applied or proposed eHealth solutions for general practice or epidemiological purposes (48%). Conclusion: eHealth solutions have the potential to provide useful services to help in COVID-19 pandemics in terms of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, screening, surveillance, resource allocation, education, management, and control. The obtained results from this review might be used for a better understanding of current ehealth solutions provided or recommended in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 3 Inclusion Criteria We included papers published in peer-reviewed journals that describe the implementation, usage, recommendation, or potential application of eHealth solutions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Because we aimed to highlight real usage as well as potential applications of eHealth related solutions in this area, all article types, such as original papers, clinical trials, ideas, editorials, opinions, news, case reports, and descriptive studies, were included. Exclusion Criteria Because our aim was focused on reviewing the result of studies of the ehealth-related solutions in response to COVID-19, papers that focus on other types of technologies or techniques, such as statistical or mathematical models and algorithms, were excluded. Any kind of publication other than those mentioned in inclusion criteria, such as interviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis, was excluded. Papers published in languages other than English as well as those for which the full-text was not available were also excluded.
doi:10.47176/mjiri.35.43 fatcat:rvvzr5lnmbf6jke54jht4gxgjq