Across the globe, the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has altered the delivery of healthcare services as patients must maintain their distance from caregivers, and still receive medical treatment. This has triggered a necessity for exploring means which minimizes the physical gap between patients and healthcare givers while offering health care and ensuring high medical protection at a reduced risk of exposure. Even though telehealth services are no replacement for conventional healthcare, its' usefulness in the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is immense.
This research reviews the ardent utilization, barriers and recommendations with telehealth services for healthcare delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.
An assessment of literature in five large digital databases; PubMed, Science Direct, Sage Pub, ProQuest, and Google Scholar was conducted. Inclusion criteria included studies defining telehealth/telemedicine, utilization, barriers and recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic from January 2020 to July 2021, written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals. Two reviewers independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies. Narrative synthesis was undertaken to summarize and report the findings.
Overall, the study discoveries which are most commonly stated as impediments for telehealth services' full utilization between patients and physicians beyond the scope of typical medical confinement are: infrastructure and internet access (20.00%), data privacy and security (13.33%), digital literacy (13.33%), reimbursement and liability (10.00%), and clinician and patient's unwillingness (6.67%).
The intrusion of coronavirus has accelerated the transition to telehealth services in healthcare delivery, but it has also provided a unique chance to demonstrate the critical role that telehealth can play in ensuring that people of all races, ethnicities, and communities receive high-quality treatment (justice). Healthcare professionals should emphasize the effectiveness of telehealth services as an alternate healthcare delivery method in promoting healthcare to all populace.
Citation: Jonathan Kissi, Daniel Kwame Kwansah Quansah, Jonathan Aseye Nutakor, Alex Boadi Dankyi, Yvette Adu-Gyamfi. Telehealth during COVID-19 pandemic era: a systematic review[J]. AIMS Medical Science, 2022, 9(1): 81-97. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2022008
[1] | Hari M. Srivastava, Artion Kashuri, Pshtiwan Othman Mohammed, Abdullah M. Alsharif, Juan L. G. Guirao . New Chebyshev type inequalities via a general family of fractional integral operators with a modified Mittag-Leffler kernel. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(10): 11167-11186. doi: 10.3934/math.2021648 |
[2] | Miguel Vivas-Cortez, Pshtiwan O. Mohammed, Y. S. Hamed, Artion Kashuri, Jorge E. Hernández, Jorge E. Macías-Díaz . On some generalized Raina-type fractional-order integral operators and related Chebyshev inequalities. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(6): 10256-10275. doi: 10.3934/math.2022571 |
[3] | Erhan Deniz, Ahmet Ocak Akdemir, Ebru Yüksel . New extensions of Chebyshev-Pólya-Szegö type inequalities via conformable integrals. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(2): 956-965. doi: 10.3934/math.2020066 |
[4] | Shahid Mubeen, Rana Safdar Ali, Iqra Nayab, Gauhar Rahman, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Dumitru Baleanu . Some generalized fractional integral inequalities with nonsingular function as a kernel. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(4): 3352-3377. doi: 10.3934/math.2021201 |
[5] | Erhan Set, M. Emin Özdemir, Sevdenur Demirbaş . Chebyshev type inequalities involving extended generalized fractional integral operators. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(4): 3573-3583. doi: 10.3934/math.2020232 |
[6] | Shuang-Shuang Zhou, Saima Rashid, Erhan Set, Abdulaziz Garba Ahmad, Y. S. Hamed . On more general inequalities for weighted generalized proportional Hadamard fractional integral operator with applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(9): 9154-9176. doi: 10.3934/math.2021532 |
[7] | Shuang-Shuang Zhou, Saima Rashid, Asia Rauf, Fahd Jarad, Y. S. Hamed, Khadijah M. Abualnaja . Efficient computations for weighted generalized proportional fractional operators with respect to a monotone function. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(8): 8001-8029. doi: 10.3934/math.2021465 |
[8] | Mustafa Gürbüz, Yakup Taşdan, Erhan Set . Ostrowski type inequalities via the Katugampola fractional integrals. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(1): 42-53. doi: 10.3934/math.2020004 |
[9] | Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Gauhar Rahman, Aftab Khan, Asifa Tassaddiq, Moheb Saad Abouzaid . Certain generalized fractional integral inequalities. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(2): 1588-1602. doi: 10.3934/math.2020108 |
[10] | Soubhagya Kumar Sahoo, Fahd Jarad, Bibhakar Kodamasingh, Artion Kashuri . Hermite-Hadamard type inclusions via generalized Atangana-Baleanu fractional operator with application. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(7): 12303-12321. doi: 10.3934/math.2022683 |
Across the globe, the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has altered the delivery of healthcare services as patients must maintain their distance from caregivers, and still receive medical treatment. This has triggered a necessity for exploring means which minimizes the physical gap between patients and healthcare givers while offering health care and ensuring high medical protection at a reduced risk of exposure. Even though telehealth services are no replacement for conventional healthcare, its' usefulness in the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is immense.
This research reviews the ardent utilization, barriers and recommendations with telehealth services for healthcare delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.
An assessment of literature in five large digital databases; PubMed, Science Direct, Sage Pub, ProQuest, and Google Scholar was conducted. Inclusion criteria included studies defining telehealth/telemedicine, utilization, barriers and recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic from January 2020 to July 2021, written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals. Two reviewers independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies. Narrative synthesis was undertaken to summarize and report the findings.
Overall, the study discoveries which are most commonly stated as impediments for telehealth services' full utilization between patients and physicians beyond the scope of typical medical confinement are: infrastructure and internet access (20.00%), data privacy and security (13.33%), digital literacy (13.33%), reimbursement and liability (10.00%), and clinician and patient's unwillingness (6.67%).
The intrusion of coronavirus has accelerated the transition to telehealth services in healthcare delivery, but it has also provided a unique chance to demonstrate the critical role that telehealth can play in ensuring that people of all races, ethnicities, and communities receive high-quality treatment (justice). Healthcare professionals should emphasize the effectiveness of telehealth services as an alternate healthcare delivery method in promoting healthcare to all populace.
Anaphylaxis is a severe and generalized form of hypersensitivity or allergic reaction, most commonly caused by an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction after allergen exposure. In this mechanism the allergen-specific IgE/high-affinity receptor (FcϵRI) on effector cells (mast and basophils) interacts with an allergen and leads to increased mediator synthesis, responsible for the symptoms [1],[2]. Other mechanisms may also lead to anaphylactic reactions. These involve non-IgE-mediated pathways resulting in activation ofthe complement system (anaphylatoxins, C3a, and C5a), contact and coagulation system activation, or immunoglobulin G (IgG)-mediated anaphylaxis [2]. Rarely, a reaction may occur with no known triggers and those cases will be classified as idiopathic [2].
The definition of what constitutes anaphylaxis slightly varies amongst different sources. According to most recent guidelines, published in World Allergy Organizational Journal, the clinical diagnosis is highly likely when either of the following clinical criteria are met:
It is worth noting that disorders such as acute asthma, acute generalized urticaria, aspiration of a foreign body such as a peanut, vasovagal episode, and anxiety or panic attacks can present similar symptoms [1],[2]. Furthermore, it has been noted that there are age-related differences in the clinical presentation of anaphylaxis [3].
There are many known causes of anaphylaxis. The most common triggers include food, drugs and insect venom [1],[2]. In the pediatric population, food is the most frequent cause [4]. These act as allergens and exposure may result in pathways leading to the clinical features of anaphylaxis. Additionally, certain age-related co-factors and individual comorbidities may increase the severity of reaction [4],[5].
Many studies have observed that cases of anaphylaxis have been increasing in the past years. Some studies also noted an increase in cases of anaphylaxis requiring hospitalization due to symptom severity [6],[7]. Because of the unstable nature of this disease, all patients with anaphylaxis, or symptoms which are likely to progress to anaphylaxis, require immediate examination and treatment [1],[2],[8].
The first line treatment in anaphylaxis is epinephrine [8]. This is a drug with vasoconstrictor effects, which help prevent upper airway mucosal edema, hypotension, and shock [9]. It also has important bronchodilator effects, cardiac inotropic and chronotropic effects [9]. By these actions it helps prevent progression of life-threatening anaphylaxis [2],[9]. Studies show that early administration of epinephrine is associated with better outcomes: less intensive care unit and in-hospital admissions [10]. The method of choice is injection of intramuscular (IM) epinephrine into the antero-lateral thigh (vastus lateralis). There are no absolute contraindications preventing the use of this drug in the setting of anaphylaxis [1],[2],[8]. This method has a relatively safe profile in the pediatric population with low rates of serious adverse effects [11].
Some transient pharmacologic effects such as pallor, tremor, anxiety, palpitations, headache, and dizziness occur within minutes after epinephrine injection [9]. Rarely, serious adverse effects such as pulmonary edema or hypertension may occur, usually this is due to overdose [9],[11].
The article will address the role of epinephrine at all stages of pediatric anaphylaxis management: pre-hospital, hospital, and post-hospital. We will mention a brief outline of gaps in the usage of the drug in clinical practice will be mentioned as well as suggestions on how to improve them.
Anaphylaxis most often occurs in non-healthcare settings, with bystanders frequently becoming the first responders. Epinephrine should be provided early on; delayed administration has been associated with an increased risk of hospitalization and severity of complications [1],[12],[13]. The initial treatment of anaphylaxis should consist of prompt injection of IM epinephrine in the mid-outer thigh (vastus lateralis muscle) in appropriately selected pre-set doses [1],[2],[8]. Commercially, epinephrine used in the pediatric population is often available in the form of prescription autoinjectors (EA) in the forms of 0.15 mg (recommended for those weighing 15–30 kg), 0.30 mg (for those weighing over 30 kg) or 0.5 mg (for adults and adolescents weighing over 60 kg) [1],[2],[14]. There may be some variation in the cut-off of these values in different areas, therefore it is worth consulting local guidelines. The 0.5 mg dose is available in Europe, although some devices recalled from the market, and since recently, Canada. Patients should be monitored, and doses should be repeated every 5–15 minutes if symptoms do not improve [1],[2],[8].
The pre-set dosages present with some of their own issues, as they are not appropriate for infants or children weighing between 7.5 kg to 15 kg. In the past, such cases were recommended to be treated with the smaller dosage of 0.15 mg [1],[2],[8]. Recently, in the United States, an EA with doses of 0.1 mg has been approved [15]. Thus, it is recommended to use it in appropriate cases when available. However, it is important to remember that in cases of anaphylaxis the use of epinephrine is always recommended regardless of age and weight as the life saving potential outweighs any side effects.
After an episode of anaphylaxis, the patient should receive a prescription for EA, when appropriate, along with instructions on how and when to use the medication [1],[8]. Since many cases of anaphylaxis are subsequent events after trigger re-exposure, patients will often be carrying a prescribed epinephrine autoinjector already. In such cases, bystanders should inject the medication as soon as possible. A good practice is to carry an anaphylaxis action plan, with clear steps explaining how to proceed that can easily be understood by individuals who do not have much exposure with such situations [1],[8].
However, in many cases, the emergency medical services will act as the first responders. In the pre-hospital setting, the first line management remains the same, as outlined above. This method of treatment is recommended for all ages. When presented in this form, it can be life saving and well tolerated.
Anaphylaxis may also occur in the healthcare setting where the management slightly changes. According to guidelines, the first line treatment in the emergency department remains IM epinephrine [1],[8]. However, the method of epinephrine dosing changes. If the patient is managed in this setting, the dosage of the drug should be calculated individually per weight. The dose recommended for use by healthcare professionals is 0.01 mg/kg of body weight, to a maximum total dose of 0.5 mg in children over 12 years old [1],[8]. In children younger than that age, the dose should be calculated based on patient age, according to the following [1]:
Dosing should be repeated every 5–15 minutes [1], if symptoms stay refractory to treatment. There is also an option of providing epinephrine by the intravenous route. However, this increases the risk of adverse effects such as fatal arrythmias [1],[2]. If such treatment is required, it is to be provided only by experienced personnel with careful monitoring [8]. The indications for the IV route are anaphylaxis refractory to IM epinephrine, shock or respiratory failure [1]. The dose and rate of infusion should be adjusted for severity of symptoms.
Anaphylaxis may also occur in an in-hospital ward setting when a consultation from an experienced specialist may not be immediately available. Examples of these situations may occur in rural centers or small non-emergency facilities. Studies show that despite guidelines, epinephrine use remains suboptimal [1],[16],[17]. Our recommendation for wards that manage anaphylaxis cases often, is to dose epinephrine based on patient weight. The wards who do not have as much experience in these cases may choose to use the approximated doses of 0.15 mg, 0.3 mg or 0.5 mg as appropriate by weight and age. Both these methods are correct according to guidelines and may allow to lower rates of personnel apprehension and hesitancy regarding using epinephrine.
Epinephrine also has roles in the out-patient management and follow-up of anaphylaxis. This includes patient education on how to minimize and manage further reactions; they must be educated on proper EA usage before leaving the hospital. Patients should receive training on trigger avoidance, specialist (allergist) referrals and EA prescriptions and training [1],[8]. The provided prescription should include more than one EA, and patients should be recommended to have at least two EA's available [1],[8]. This should be emphasized to all patients, as studies show that when responding to anaphylaxis, using a second dose of epinephrine will be required in 16–32% of cases [2]. Patient education is crucial, as many of these reactions will occur outside of the hospital. In the pediatrics population it is important to include guardians in the planning as they will be the ones responding frequently. Additionally, they should be advised to discuss the child's condition and its required management with teachers or any other adult who spends a substantial amount of time with them. All healthcare professionals should familiarize themselves with guidelines, as they should also feel comfortable when explaining this topic and with using epinephrine when responding to anaphylaxis.
Epinephrine is underused when treating anaphylaxis [18],[19]. In a North Carolina based study, Cristiano et al., observed that epinephrine is frequently underused by emergency medical services in the pre-hospital management of pediatric anaphylaxis. They observed that those under the age of ten are especially susceptible [20]. Carrillo et al., determined that epinephrine was provided by California based emergency medical services to only half of the anaphylaxis cases in which a clinical diagnosis of the disease was made [21]. Many also noted underusing of epinephrine in the hospital setting. Such were Dubus et al., who noted that physicians practicing in France decided to use the drug only in most severe pediatric anaphylaxis cases [22]. As mentioned, all patients who have presented an anaphylactic event should receive EA prescriptions, wherever these are available, or appropriate alternative adrenaline (prefilled syringe or vial plus intramuscular needle) if EA are not available [1],[2]. However, there is a tendency for physicians to under-prescribe epinephrine to patients diagnosed with anaphylaxis in the ED [2]. Another issue is patients not carrying the proper number of EA as recommended. In a study examining the availability of a second dose of epinephrine (in anaphylaxis) if needed, Song et al., stated that half of the studied population required further emergency response due to inability to access a second dose of epinephrine [23].
As mentioned earlier, delayed administration of epinephrine is associated with increased hospital admissions and complications [1],[14]. This emphasizes the gap that needs to be addressed to avoid missed opportunities when life-saving epinephrine should be administered at all levels. There is a need for prompt patient education on symptoms and usage of EA. They also need to be educated on the importance of proper management adherence. We also suggest that healthcare professionals working in environments which are likely to be required to manage anaphylaxis also receive clear training on epinephrine use and dosages to lessen the hesitancy when providing the treatment. Clear indications on which dosages to use in which wards may help with this.
Epinephrine plays a crucial role in the management of anaphylaxis at all stages of care. It is the first line treatment in both the non-healthcare and in-hospital treatment. Data on suboptimal use of the drug in emergency cases shows that steps should be taken to ensure that it is applied in all necessary situations. In this article, we outlined the most crucial, not to be omitted aspects of managing pediatric anaphylaxis using epinephrine.
[1] |
Blandford A, Wesson J, Amalberti R, et al. (2020) Opportunities and challenges for telehealth within, and beyond, a pandemic. Lancet Glob Health 8: e1364-e1365. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30362-4 ![]() |
[2] |
Hoffman DA (2020) Increasing access to care: telehealth during COVID-19. J Law Biosci 7: lsaa043. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaa043 ![]() |
[3] |
Abdel-Wahab M, Rosenblatt E, Prajogi B, et al. (2020) Opportunities in telemedicine, lessons learned after COVID-19 and the way into the future. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 108: 438-443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.07.006 ![]() |
[4] |
Barney A, Buckelew S, Mesheriakova V, et al. (2020) The COVID-19 pandemic and rapid implementation of adolescent and young adult telemedicine: challenges and opportunities for innovation. J Adolesc Health 67: 164-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.05.006 ![]() |
[5] |
Gajarawala SN, Pelkowski JN (2020) Telehealth benefits and barriers. J Nurse Pract 17: 218-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nurpra.2020.09.013 ![]() |
[6] | Zhai Y (2020) A call for addressing barriers to telemedicine: health disparities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychother Psychosom 4: 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1159/000509000 |
[7] |
Al-Samarraie H, Ghazal S, Alzahrani AI, et al. (2020) Telemedicine in Middle Eastern countries: Progress, barriers, and policy recommendations. Int J Med Inform 141: 104232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104232 ![]() |
[8] |
Bakshi S, Tandon U (2021) Understanding barriers of telemedicine adoption : a study in North India. Syst Res Behav Sci 39: 128-142. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2774 ![]() |
[9] |
Jalali MS, Landman A, Gordon WJ (2021) Telemedicine, privacy, and information security in the age of COVID-19. J Am Med Inform Assoc 28: 671-672. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocaa310 ![]() |
[10] |
Chowdhury SR, Sunna TC, Ahmed S (2021) Telemedicine is an important aspect of healthcare services amid COVID-19 outbreak: Its barriers in Bangladesh and strategies to overcome. Int J Health Plann Manage 36: 4-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3064 ![]() |
[11] |
Triana AJ, Gusdorf RE, Shah KP, et al. (2020) Technology literacy as a barrier to telehealth during COVID-19. Telemed J E Health 26: 1118-1119. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2020.0155 ![]() |
[12] |
Smith AC, Thomas E, Snoswell CL, et al. (2020) Telehealth for global emergencies: Implications for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). J Telemed Telecare 26: 309-313. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X20916567 ![]() |
[13] |
Dubin JM, Wyant WA, Balaji NC, et al. (2020) Telemedicine usage among urologists during the COVID-19 pandemic: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res 22: e21875. https://doi.org/10.2196/21875 ![]() |
[14] |
Ahmed S, Sanghvi K, Yeo D (2020) Telemedicine takes centre stage during COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Innov 6: 252-254. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2020-000440 ![]() |
[15] |
Monaghesh E, Hajizadeh A (2020) The role of telehealth during COVID-19 outbreak: a systematic review based on current evidence. BMC Public Health 20: 1193. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09301-4 ![]() |
[16] | Okereafor K, Adebola O, Djehaiche R (2020) Exploring the potentials of telemedicine and other non-contact electronic health technologies in controlling the spread of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). IJMR 8: 1-13. |
[17] |
Bokolo AJ (2021) Exploring the adoption of telemedicine and virtual software for care of outpatients during and after COVID-19 pandemic. Ir J Med Sci 190: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-020-02299-z ![]() |
[18] | Burroughs M, Urits I, Viswanath O, et al. (2020) Benefits and shortcomings of utilizing telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) 33: 699-700. https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2020.1792728 |
[19] | Nouri S, Khoong EC, Lyles CR, et al. (2020) Addressing equity in telemedicine for chronic disease management during the COVID-19 pandemic. NEJM Catalyst 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1056/CAT.20.0123 |
[20] |
Ortega G, Rodriguez JA, Maurer LR, et al. (2020) Telemedicine, COVID-19, and disparities: Policy implications. Health Policy Technol 9: 368-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.08.001 ![]() |
[21] |
Vidal-Alaball J, Acosta-Roja R, Pastor Hernández N, et al. (2020) Telemedicine in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. Aten Primaria 52: 418-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aprim.2020.04.003 ![]() |
[22] | Oyediran KA, Makinde OA, Adelakin O (2020) The role of telemedicine in addressing access to sexual and reproductive health services in sub-Saharan Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic. Afr J Reprod Health 24: 49-55. https://doi.org/10.29063/ajrh2020/v24i2s.8 |
[23] |
Wosik J, Fudim M, Cameron B, et al. (2020) Telehealth transformation: COVID-19 and the rise of virtual care. J Am Med Inform Assoc 27: 957-962. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocaa067 ![]() |
[24] |
Ohannessian R, Duong TA, Odone A (2020) Global telemedicine implementation and integration within health systems to fight the COVID-19 pandemic: a call to action. JMIR Public Health Surveill 6: e18810. https://doi.org/10.2196/18810 ![]() |
[25] | Nittas V, Von Wyl V (2020) COVID-19 and telehealth: a window of opportunity and its challenges. Swiss Med Wkly 150: w20284. https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2020.20284 |
[26] |
Gifford AH, Ong T, Dowd C, et al. (2020) Evaluating barriers to and promoters of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic at U.S. cystic fibrosis programs. J Cyst Fibros 20: 9-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcf.2021.08.034 ![]() |
[27] |
Garfan S, Alamoodi AH, Zaidan BB, et al. (2021) Telehealth utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. Comput Biol Med 138: 104878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104878 ![]() |
[28] |
Akintunde TY, Akintunde OD, Musa TH, et al. (2021) Expanding telemedicine to reduce the burden on the healthcare systems and poverty in Africa for a post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic reformation. Glob Health J 5: 128-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glohj.2021.07.006 ![]() |
[29] |
Rozga M, Handu D, Kelley K, et al. (2021) Telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey of registered dietitian nutritionists. J Acad Nutr Diet 121: 2524-2535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2021.01.009 ![]() |
[30] |
Cunningham NR, Ely SL, Garcia BNB, et al. (2021) Addressing pediatric mental health using telehealth during coronavirus disease-2019 and beyond: a narrative review. Acad Pediatr 21: 1108-1117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2021.06.002 ![]() |
1. | Joanna Żyła, Mateusz Henryk Kopczyński, Tomasz Konieczny, Jan Stachurski, Identification of factors causing dyspnea among children reported to the Emergency Department, 2024, 11, 23917822, 178, 10.36740/EmeMS202403106 |