This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Wearables and MHealth Reviews (272) Mental Health Issues in Elderly Patients and Geriatric Psychiatry (88) mHealth for Wellness, Behavior Change and Prevention (2865) mHealth for Telemedicine and Homecare (396) Depression and Mood Disorders; Suicide Prevention (1360) Clinical Communication, Electronic Consultation and Telehealth (586) Web-based and Mobile Health Interventions (3287)

Published on in Vol 12 (2024)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/50787, first published .
Effectiveness of Telecare Interventions on Depression Symptoms Among Older Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Effectiveness of Telecare Interventions on Depression Symptoms Among Older Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Effectiveness of Telecare Interventions on Depression Symptoms Among Older Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Authors of this article:

Man Wu1 Author Orcid Image ;   Chaoyang Li1 Author Orcid Image ;   Ting Hu1 Author Orcid Image ;   Xueyang Zhao1 Author Orcid Image ;   Guiyuan Qiao1 Author Orcid Image ;   Xiaolian Gao1 Author Orcid Image ;   Xinhong Zhu1 Author Orcid Image ;   Fen Yang1, 2 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by (4) Tweetations (3) Metrics

    Review

    1School of Nursing, Hubei University of Chinese Medicine, Wuhan, China

    2Hubei Shizhen Laboratory, Wuhan, China

    Corresponding Author:

    Fen Yang, PhD

    School of Nursing

    Hubei University of Chinese Medicine

    North District, No 16, Huangjiahu West Road

    Hongshan District

    Wuhan, 430065

    China

    Phone: 86 18062003261

    Email: fenyang@hbtcm.edu.cn


    Background: Depression is the most common psychiatric disorder among older adults. Despite the effectiveness of pharmacological and psychological therapies, many patients with late-life depression (LLD) are unable to access timely treatment. Telecare has been shown to be effective in addressing patients' psychosocial issues, while its effectiveness in serving patients with LLD remains unclear.

    Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of telecare in reducing depression and anxiety symptoms and improving quality of life (QoL) in patients with LLD.

    Methods: Databases including the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and EBSCO were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of telecare for LLD from database establishment to December 28, 2022.

    Results: A total of 12 RCTs involving 1663 participants were identified in this study. The meta-analysis showed that (1) telecare significantly reduced depressive symptoms in patients with LLD compared to those in usual care (UC; standardized mean difference [SMD]=–0.46, 95% CI –0.53 to –0.38; P<.001), with the best improvement observed within 3 months of intervention (SMD=–0.72, 95% CI –1.16 to –0.28; P<.001); (2) other scales appeared more effective than the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 for LLD in telecare interventions (SMD=–0.65, 95% CI –0.96 to –0.35; P<.001); (3) telecare was more effective than telephone-based interventions for remote monitoring of LLD (SMD=–1.13, 95% CI –1.51 to –0.76; P<.001); (4) the reduction of depressive symptoms was more pronounced in patients with LLD with chronic conditions (SMD=–0.67, 95% CI –0.89 to –0.44; P<.001); (5) telecare was more effective for LLD in Europe and the Americas than in other regions (SMD=–0.73, 95% CI –0.99 to –0.47; P<.001); (6) telecare significantly reduced anxiety symptoms in patients with LLD (SMD=–0.53, 95% CI –0.73 to –0.33; P=.02); and (7) there was no significant improvement in the psychological components of QoL in patients with LLD compared to those receiving UC (SMD=0.30, 95% CI 0.18-0.43; P=.80).

    Conclusions: Telecare is a promising modality of care for treatment, which can alleviate depression and anxiety symptoms in patients with LLD. Continued in-depth research into the effectiveness of telecare in treating depression could better identify where older patients would benefit from this intervention.

    JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2024;12:e50787

    doi:10.2196/50787

    Keywords

    telecare; depression; anxiety; quality of life; older adults; meta-analysis 


    Statistics show that the world’s population older than 60 years will double between 2015 and 2050, increasing from 12.0% to 22.0% [1]. With the rapid growth of the older population, late-life depression (LLD) has gradually emerged as a hot topic in the field of geriatric medical research. LLD refers to depressive disorders occurring in adults older than 60 years [2,3]. Research findings indicate a global prevalence of LLD of 28.4% [4], which could potentially be higher among individuals with concurrent physical ailments. As a geriatric syndrome with multifactorial etiology, LLD is highly associated with medical problems that pervade later life, including diabetes, hypertension, and dementia [2,5]. LLD is often chronic or recurrent and is associated with functional impairment, diminished health-related quality of life (QoL), and impaired social-psychological functioning [3,6]. A study confirmed that health care costs for patients with LLD were 43.0% to 52.0% higher for outpatient services and 47.0% to 51.0% higher when outpatient and inpatient services were combined, compared to those for individuals without LLD [7].

    Despite its high prevalence and severe adverse outcomes, LLD is often overlooked and inadequately treated due to other complications resulting from aging-related issues. Psychopharmacotherapy and psychotherapy have been demonstrated to be effective for people with depression [6]; however, these treatments still have limitations, such as medical side effects and poor treatment adherence [8,9]. Due to mobility issues, geographic isolation, stigma associated with mental illness, and negative beliefs about treatment, older adults have limited access to health care or may be unwilling to seek help from health care institutions [10-12]. Additionally, underuse of professional mental health services, including low detection rates by health care providers and the lack of awareness among older patients regarding the severity of their condition [13,14], is also one of the factors that impede the treatment of LLD. Limited by these factors, only a minority of older adults receive appropriate treatment for depression. Therefore, there is an urgent need to study the clinical effectiveness of alternative therapies for depression, which are more socially acceptable and easily available.

    In recent years, there has been increasing attention toward using telecare to support the management and well-being of mental health [15]. Telecare refers to the delivery of health care directly to users, typically in their own homes, supported by information and communication technologies such as telephone, videoconferencing, and applications [16,17]. Health care professionals can remotely provide consultation, assessment, and intervention services to patients [18]. These services include, but are not limited to, lifestyle monitoring, remote monitoring of vital signs for diagnosis, as well as long-distance assessment and education. The benefits of telecare are evident. Evidence suggests that as a promising strategy, telecare services can serve as a medium to overcome certain barriers, thereby enhancing mental health care and increasing opportunities to access evidence-based care under different conditions [19]. Particularly, telecare benefits older adults who are socially isolated or physically frail due to illness, disability, or other familial roles [17,20]. Currently, telecare has been widely used in the management of various chronic conditions among older adults, such as diabetes, hypertension, Parkinson disease, etc, yielding positive outcomes [21-23]. Depression is a commonly observed chronic condition among older adults, closely associated with an approximate 50% increase in chronic disease-related health care costs [24]. Given the significant impact of LLD on patients' QoL and its potential consequences on decreased productivity or suicide, ensuring continuity of care is imperative. Telecare has been proposed as an effective alternative to help bridge this treatment problem. Considering the complexity and severity of LLD, it is necessary to further explore whether telecare is effective in improving health outcomes for patients with LLD.

    Previous reviews have assessed the evidence related to the use of telecare for managing mental health issues [11,25]. In the field of psychiatry, telecare has been found to significantly impact mental health outcomes in older adults, including reducing emergency visits and hospitalizations, as well as improving cognitive function [11]. However, the efficacy of telecare for depression is inconsistent. Some studies suggest the effectiveness of telecare in reducing symptoms of depression [11,26], while others indicate that the impact of telecare on improving depressive symptoms is limited, even yielding contradictory results [27,28]. Previous meta-analyses examining the effectiveness of telecare on depression have mostly focused on adult populations [25-27]. However, compared to other age groups, LLD is considered to be different [14]. Differences in study design, intervention methods, and treatment intensity may contribute to varying clinical outcomes in telecare treatments for LLD. Despite recent meta-analyses demonstrating significant efficacy of telemedicine in alleviating depressive symptoms among older adults, the evaluation of its evidence remains limited [29]. Due to inherent heterogeneity in inclusion criteria, interpretation of these results should be approached cautiously. The severe clinical outcomes and interfering factors often pose significant challenges in the treatment of LLD. Determining whether telecare management is effective for LLD is critical. It is unclear how effective telecare is in improving depression, anxiety symptoms, and QoL in patients with LLD. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis explored the efficacy of telecare for LLD.


    This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines (Multimedia Appendix 1) [30].

    Search Strategy

    We conducted searches in Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and EBSCO for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from the inception of the databases up to December 28, 2022, without any language restriction. MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) and free search terms were both used in the literature search. The search terms included “cell Phones,” “telemedicine,” “smartphone,” “mobile applications,” “mobile phone*,” “telephone*,” “telehealth,” “tele-healthcare,” “electronic health*,” “application*,” “m-health,” “messaging,” “depression,” “depressive disorder,” “depress*,” “Major depression,” “sadness,” “late-life depression,” “LLD,” “aged,” “elder*,” “geriatric,” “senior people,” “RCTs,” etc. All titles, keywords, and abstracts have been reviewed in accordance with our search criteria. In this study, these research articles were exclusively published in English, focusing on telecare interventions for LLD. The specific search strategy is shown in Multimedia Appendix 2.

    Study Selection and Data Exclusion

    The inclusion criteria were the following: (1) studies were RCTs reported in full text with their title and abstract; (2) the average age of the study population was at least 60 years; (3) participants were diagnosed with depression in accordance with any established diagnostic criteria or with a score above a cutoff of any established depression rating scale at baseline; (4) the studies compare telecare (mobile phone, telephone, app, video, etc) participants with the control group receiving usual care (UC; routine, offline, or standard care); and (5) any health care professional providing care (ie, psychiatrists, family physicians, nurses, psychologists, etc).

    Exclusion criteria were the following: (1) patients with manic or psychotic episodes or symptoms; (2) studies not related to the objective of this review and insufficient data, such as failure to report depression scale scores; and (3) books and studies without full text and studies in the format of abstracts of conference papers.

    Data Extraction

    Two authors independently reviewed all the databases, with specific search strategies for the relevant articles (MW and CYL). The software EndNote X9 (Clarivate) was used to import all the references and remove duplicates. After removing duplicates, the relevance of the title and abstract of the articles was evaluated. Any disagreements were discussed until a consensus was reached. After screening the title and abstract, the articles were selected for the next step of a full-text review. The 2 authors screened the full-text articles independently (MW and CYL). Finally, eligible articles included in the study were processed based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Any discrepancies that arose during the assessment were resolved by a third reviewer (FY). Two authors independently extracted data from the included studies and entered them into a predesigned data extraction form. Data extracted for this study included the following: first author, year of publication, country, sample size, mean age, intervention approach, duration, presence or absence of comorbid chronic conditions, depression degree, and outcome measurement tools (Table 1).

    Table 1. Basic characteristics of the included studies (N=12; all are randomized controlled trials).
    First author (year); countrySample size, N (TCa/UCb)Age (years), mean (SD)DurationComorbid chronic diseasesDepression degreeOutcomes
    Rollman (2009) [31]; United States302 (150/152)TC: 64 (10.8); UC: 64 (11.2)Baseline, 8 monthsYesModerateHAM-Dc and SF-36d
    Aburizik (2013) [32]; United States52 (29/23)TC: 66.4 (7.9); UC: 64.1 (10.5)Baseline, 10 weeksYesMildPHQ-9e and BDIf
    Lee (2014) [23]; Korea25 (12/13)TC: 66.7 (7.9); UC: 65.4 (8.6)Baseline, 6 monthsYesMild, moderateCES-Dg
    Villani (2014) [33]; Italy80 (40/40)TC: 71 (4); UC: 73 (5)Baseline, 12 monthsYesModerate, severePHQ-9 and STAI-6h
    Pickett (2014) [34]; United States124 (60/64)TC: 69.1 (10.9); UC: 68.6 (10.7)Baseline, 12 weeksNoMildPHQ-9　
    O\'Neil (2014) [35]; Australia121 (61/60)TC: 61.0 (10.2); UC: 58.9 (10.7)Baseline, 6 monthsYesMild, moderatePHQ-9, CDSi, and SF-12j
    Gellis (2014) [36]; United States94 (46/48)TC: 80.1 (7.8); UC: 78.3 (6.9)Baseline, 3 months, and 6 monthsYesMild, moderatePHQ-9, HAM-D, and SF-12
    Yang (2019) [37]; China212 (107/105)TC: 61.25 (8.60); UC: 60.85 (10.80)Baseline, 12 monthsYesMild, moderateHADS-Dk and SDSl
    Naik (2019) [21]; United States225 (136/89)61.9 (8.3)Baseline, 6 months, and 12 monthsYesModeratePHQ-9
    Dobkin (2020) [22]; United States72 (37/35)TC: 65.62 (9.76); UC: 64.80 (9.62)Baseline, 3 months, and 6 monthsYesModerateHAM-D, BDI, HAM-Am, and SF-36
    Almeida (2021) [38]; Australia200 (79/121)≥65Baseline, and 52 weeksNoMild, moderatePHQ-9, GAD-7n, and SF-12
    Koehler (2021) [39]; Germany156 (79/77)TC: 68.30 (9.13); UC: 64.34 (11.35)Baseline, 12 monthsYesModeratePHQ-9 and SF-36

    aTC: telecare.

    bUC: usual care.

    cHAM-D: Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

    dSF-36: 36-Item Short Form Survey.

    ePHQ-9: Patient Health Questionnaire-9.

    fBDI: Beck Depression Inventory.

    gCES-D: Center for Epidemiological Survey, Depression Scale.

    hSTAI-6: Spielberger’s State Trait Anxiety Inventory.

    iCDS: Cardiac Depression Scale.

    jSF-12: 12-Item Short Form Survey.

    kHADS-D: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.

    lSDS: Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale.

    mHAM-A: Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale.

    nGAD-7: 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale.

    Quality Assessment

    Two authors (MW and CYL) independently assessed the quality of the studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool [40]. The assessment tool included 7 items (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other bias), and authors judged each item individually as “low risk,” “high risk,” and “unclear risk.” The study was considered to be of high quality with a low risk score for at least 4 domains, of which 3 key areas had to be included (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and incomplete outcome data). Consensus was reached by 2 authors (MW and CYL) through discussion with a third evaluator (FY).

    Statistical Analysis

    Data were analyzed using Stata (version 16.0; StataCorp) and Review Manager (version 5.3; The Cochrane Collaboration). Intervention effects were estimated by calculating Cohen d standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% CIs [41]. All studies reported outcomes as continuous data. The Cochran Q statistic and I2 statistic were used to assess the statistical heterogeneity between selected studies. Random-effects models were used when study heterogeneity was high (P<.10; I2>50%); otherwise, a fixed-effects model would be used. When heterogeneity identified across studies was high, we further performed subgroup analyses to explore possible explanations for heterogeneity. Publication bias was measured using a funnel plot and Egger linear regression analysis, and P<.05 on the Egger test indicated statistically significant publication bias [42].


    Literature Search

    The database search yielded 15,265 articles, of which 14,249 publications were excluded. A total of 1016 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Finally, only 12 studies were eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis [21-23,31-39], all of which were RCTs published between 2009 and 2021. The PRISMA flow diagram is shown in Figure 1.

    ‎
    Figure 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram. RCT: randomized controlled trial.

    Risks of Bias and Quality Assessment

    Overall, the quality of the included studies was moderate, of which 5 (41.7%) were of high quality. These studies show that the main bias in the blinding of participants and personnel may be caused by the nature of the intervention measures. All 12 articles reported adequate random sequence generation and, therefore, had a low risk of bias in this regard. In addition, 5 studies reported allocation concealment, which is a low risk of bias. As for detection bias, the assessors were blinded in 7 studies, the presence of blinding was unclear in 3 studies, and 2 studies were not blinded. The risks of study attrition bias and reporting bias were both low. Other risks of bias were also low but were unclear in 1 study. The specific risk of bias and quality assessment results are shown in Figures 2 and 3 [21-23,31-39].

    ‎
    Figure 2. Overall risk of each type of bias.
    ‎
    Figure 3. Risk of bias in each study.

    Study and Patient Characteristics

    The characteristics of the studies included are summarized in Table 1. A total of 1663 patients with LLD were involved, with an average age of over 60 years in each group. The sample size ranged from 25 [23] to 302 [31] participants. Studies were carried out across 6 countries, including the United States (n=6) [21,22,31,32,34,36], Korea (n=1) [23], Italy (n=1) [33], Australia (n=2) [35,38], China (n=1) [37], and Germany (n=1) [39]. Nine of these used telephone-based interventions, while the remaining studies used remote monitoring systems. Durations ranged from 10 weeks to 52 weeks. Depression, anxiety symptoms, and QoL were substantial influencing factors of treatment for older adults. Therefore, our primary outcome of interest was depression, and secondary outcomes were anxiety symptoms and QoL. Depression was evaluated using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Beck Depression Inventory, Center for Epidemiological Survey, Depression Scale, Cardiac Depression Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale. Anxiety symptoms were assessed using Spielberger’s State Trait Anxiety Inventory, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, and the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale. QoL was assessed using the 12-Item Short Form Survey and the 36-Item Short Form Survey. A higher score on the scales indicated better QoL and greater severity of depression and anxiety symptoms. The specific interventions are available in Multimedia Appendix 3.

    Depression Symptoms

    A total of 12 RCTs involving 1663 participants were identified in this meta-analysis to calculate the effectiveness of telecare on depression, anxiety symptoms, and QoL in patients with LLD.

    To compare the effects of telecare and UC in improving LLD, we included data from 12 of these studies. Our results show that telecare significantly reduced depressive symptoms in patients with LLD compared to those in UC (SMD=–0.46, 95% CI –0.53 to –0.38; P<.001). Fixed-effects model analysis revealed significant heterogeneity among the 12 included studies (I2=83.16%; P<.001; Figure 4) [21-23,31-39].

    ‎
    Figure 4. Forest plot for primary outcomes: depression. a: Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; b: Patient Health Questionnaire-9; c: Beck Depression Inventory; d: Center for Epidemiological Survey, Depression Scale; e: Cardiac Depression Scale; f: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; g: Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale.

    To address high heterogeneity, we performed subgroup analyses grouped by the type of scale (PHQ-9 or others), duration time (≤3 months or >3 months), device type (telephone-based or remote monitoring system), comorbid chronic diseases (presence or absence), and region (Europe and the Americas or others).

    Random-effects models indicated that telecare significantly reduced depressive symptoms in patients with LLD compared to the UC participants (SMD=–0.59, 95% CI –0.80 to –0.38; P<.001). Results of subgroup analysis by duration showed that short-term (≤3 months) interventions (SMD=–0.72, 95% CI –1.16 to –0.28; P<.001) were more effective than long-term (>3 months) interventions (SMD=–0.52, 95% CI –0.75 to –0.29; P<.001); other scales (SMD=–0.65, 95% CI –0.96 to –0.35; P<.001) were more effective than the PHQ-9 (SMD=–0.53, 95% CI –0.83 to –0.22; P<.001); the remote monitoring system (SMD=–1.13, 95% CI –1.51 to –0.76; P<.001) was more effective than telephone-based interventions (SMD=–0.38, 95% CI –0.56 to –0.20; P<.001); the effect on patients with LLD with chronic diseases (SMD=–0.67, 95% CI –0.89 to –0.44; P<.001) was better than that on patients with LLD without comorbid chronic diseases (SMD=–0.10, 95% CI –0.41 to 0.20; P=.07); and telecare was more effective in Europe and the Americas (SMD=–0.73, 95% CI –0.99 to –0.47; P<.001) than in other regions (SMD=–0.22, 95% CI –0.35 to –0.09; P=.42; Table 2).

    Table 2. Subgroup meta-analysis for patients with late-life depression.
    SubgroupsCohen d SMDa95% CIP valueHeterogeneity (I2; %)
    Overall–0.59–0.80 to –0.38<.00186.42
    Duration
    ≤3 months–0.72–1.16 to –0.28<.00186.91
    >3 months–0.52–0.75 to –0.29<.00184.72
    Type of scale
    PHQ-9b–0.53–0.83 to –0.22<.00187.13
    Others–0.65–0.96 to –0.35<.00186.21
    Device type
    Telephone-based–0.38–0.56 to –0.20<.00175.30
    Remote monitoring system–1.13–1.51 to –0.76<.00178.32
    Comorbid chronic diseases
    Presence–0.67–0.89 to –0.44<.00185.31
    Absence–0.10–0.41 to 0.20.0761.45
    Region
    Europe and the Americas–0.73–0.99 to –0.47<.00186.38
    Others–0.22–0.35 to –0.09.420.00

    aSMD: standardized mean difference.

    bPHQ-9: Patient Health Questionnaire-9.

    Meta-regression analysis showed that heterogeneity may not be related to the year of publication (P=.42), total sample size (P=.21), study area (P=.35), comorbid chronic disease (P=.47), duration (P=.75), and outcome measurement tools (P=.29). However, only the intervention device (P=.004) may have contributed to the heterogeneity.

    Sensitivity Analysis and Publication Bias

    The stability and reliability of the results of this meta-analysis and potential factors contributing to heterogeneity were explored by sensitivity analysis to assess the effect of the data of each study on the combined effect value (ie, SMD). The results of the sensitivity analysis showed that excluding each study individually had no significant effect on the combined effect value, and the study results were stable and reliable (Figure 5) [21-23,31-39]. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger test indicators. The funnel plot was symmetrically distributed on both sides (Figure 6), and the Egger test showed no significant publication bias (P=.05).

    ‎
    Figure 5. Sensitivity analysis of effect value (standardized mean difference).
    ‎
    Figure 6. Funnel plot showing publication bias. SMD: standardized mean difference.

    Anxiety Symptoms

    To examine the efficacy of telecare in reducing anxiety compared with that of UC, we included 3 articles on patients with LLD. The results showed that telecare significantly reduced anxiety symptoms in patients with LLD (SMD=–0.53, 95% CI –0.73 to –0.33; P=.02; Figure 7) [22,33,38].

    ‎
    Figure 7. Forest plot of secondary outcome: anxiety.

    QoL

    Six studies assessed the mental components of QoL by using the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form survey. Our meta-analysis shows that the QoL of patients with LLD improved, but, overall, it was not significant (SMD=0.30, 95% CI 0.18-0.43; P=.80; Figure 8) [22,31,35,36,38,39].

    ‎
    Figure 8. Forest plot of secondary outcome: quality of life.

    Principal Findings

    This meta-analysis shows that compared with UC, telecare significantly reduces symptoms of depression and anxiety but has no significant effect on improving QoL in patients with LLD.

    Primary Outcome Measures

    The pooled results show that telecare has a significant effect on reducing depressive symptoms in patients with LLD, which is consistent with the findings of previous studies [25,26,29]. Apart from dealing with depression itself, the increased severity of LLD is also related to factors such as aging, chronic disease, and socioeconomic stress [5]. Telecare offers unique and innovative opportunities for treating depression symptoms in older adults. Patients with LLD can leverage the advantages of telecare to connect with health care professionals, overcoming geographical distance and physical limitations, thereby reducing the psychological burden of coping with the disease [43]. Furthermore, professional psychological support is crucial for patients with LLD, and it can encourage patients to express their feelings and release stress [44]. However, it is worth noting that despite telecare offering more possibilities for treating LLD, the complexity of the medical population makes it challenging. Telecare can provide greater coverage for health care, yet considerations such as individual needs of older patients or environmental backgrounds need to be factored in [45]. Currently, offering targeted telecare services to a large population of older adults in rural, remote, or underserved areas remains a challenge [10]. In particular, older adults face significant barriers in using telephone and internet connections during the COVID-19 pandemic [46]. As a result, telecare management may not be as effective for this population as for others. The size of the research effect will depend on the nature of the intervention and the quality of the study [47]. High-quality telemedicine will help older adults benefit both physically and mentally. Further investigation and more research are necessary.

    Subgroup analysis indicates that the effectiveness of telecare in treating LLD can be influenced by measurement tools, durations, intervention devices, comorbid chronic conditions, and regions involved. In terms of depression measurement tools, other scales appear to be more effective than PHQ-9 (0.65% vs 0.53%), which may be related to measurement errors caused by differences in specific items and the generalizability of different measurement tools [48]. Results from durations of ≤3 and >3 months showed a reduction in depressive symptoms in patients with LLD, with short-term interventions proving to be more effective (0.72% vs 0.52%). Short-term interventions focus more on addressing specific issues or symptoms, producing immediate effects. For older adults, short-term interventions might be more readily accepted as long-term treatments could induce fatigue or a lack of patience. Our findings differ slightly from those of another study [49], which implemented more targeted interventions based on different treatment responses, confirming the more significant effectiveness of long-term interventions. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to conclusively establish that telecare is necessarily superior in short-term intervention efficacy for LLD compared to long-term interventions. In fact, for depression management, a combination of short-term and long-term interventions is often required to deliver comprehensive and enduring support and management [50].

    Subgroup analysis also found that remote monitoring systems appear to be more effective than telephone-based management (1.13% vs 0.38%). The remote monitoring system ensures timely and accurate transmission of patients' symptom information and data to health care professionals, enabling patients to receive effective treatments [51]. Telecare was more effective in patients with LLD with comorbid chronic conditions compared to those without such comorbidities (0.67% vs 0.10%). Co-occurrence of chronic medical conditions and depression is common. Evidence suggests that older adults with chronic illness are more likely to be affected by depressive symptoms than those without chronic illness [2,5,7]. Older adults with chronic conditions are more likely to seek medical care and adherent to treatment [52]. Therefore, while actively treating chronic conditions, there might be a degree of alleviation in depressive symptoms among older adults. Telecare was more effective in Europe and the Americas in improving depressive symptoms in patients with LLD compared than in other regions (0.73% vs 0.22%). The health care systems in Europe and the Americas are generally more developed, which may lead to more comprehensive support for telecare [53]. In low- and middle-income countries, the resources available for geriatric mental health care are considered severely inadequate [54]. Nevertheless, telecare is beginning to have an important impact on many aspects of health care in transitional countries [55]. 

    Secondary Outcome Measures

    Telecare has a positive effect on improving anxiety symptoms of patients with LLD. This result is consistent with findings from other studies [56]. Telecare offers a more convenient access method, allowing patients to receive treatment at home, thereby circumventing the inconvenience and anxiety associated with hospital visits [16,17]. Health care professionals can engage with patients more frequently through telecare, gaining insights into their symptoms and emotional fluctuations. This allows for adjustments in the treatment plan to effectively meet the unique needs of this population [18,57]. Additionally, the symptoms of anxiety and depression are often co-occurring [58], particularly among older adults. Due to the similarity between depression and anxiety symptoms, many treatment approaches are shared between the two. A recent meta-analysis suggests that psychotherapy delivered remotely is as effective as face-to-face therapy for anxiety disorder [59]. This evidence is based on outcomes obtained from different age groups. It may be more challenging to create a trusting relationship remotely than in person [60]. Older adults have negative views about health IT performing accurately and dependably, which will have a significant impact on the acceptance of telecare [61]. In brief, when using telecare for addressing emotional disorders in older adults, closer supervision and guidance might be necessary. Health care professionals need to distinguish the appropriateness of using telecare for communication and, in turn, individually tailor patient care.

    We found that the mental component of QoL in patients with LLD improved after using telecare; however, this difference was not significant compared to that with the use of UC. This finding aligns with results from other studies [62,63]. Improving QoL is a comprehensive issue that includes not only improvements in health care but also social, psychological, and emotional factors [64]. Influenced by these factors, it is difficult to compare the results of QoL considering different contexts. Several results from RCTs with older adults using telemonitoring systems showed an improvement in the participants' QoL [65,66]; other telemonitoring RCTs could not achieve congruent results [67]. Improvements in QoL often require deeper interactions and personalized care. In particular, participants with mental disorders may benefit from individual and tailored solutions provided by general practitioners [68]. When using telecare, it is crucial to acknowledge that each subpopulation of marginalized older adults has differing strengths and needs. The studies we included focused more on managing the disease itself, which may weaken overall effectiveness. It is not easy to present telemedicine to the older population. The limitations inherent in older adults may lead to difficulties in receiving telecare, including the lack of technical literacy, equipment access barriers, cognitive function, etc [11]. These reasons could explain why telecare is not significant in improving the QoL of patients with LLD. The potential value of telecare in maintaining the QoL for individuals with LLD warrants further exploration. While this study did not reveal a positive impact of telecare on the QoL for patients with LLD, it has been established that telecare can assist patients with LLD in gaining more information about health services.

    Limitations

    This study still had some limitations. First, most of the studies included in the review lacked sufficient measure detail, leading to irreversible bias. Our study mainly included 2 interventions based on telephone and remote monitoring to reduce this bias. Second, the measurement tools used in this study lacked standardization and heavily relied on self-reports from participants, introducing a degree of subjectivity and concealment that is not as rigorous as structured interviews. However, we attempted to validate the effectiveness of the results by using authoritative scales. Third, differences in the specific intervention methods, frequency, and content among the included studies may lead to clinical heterogeneity across different studies.

    Conclusions

    Our meta-analysis shows that telecare has a positive impact on depressive and anxiety symptoms, despite high heterogeneity in depression symptoms. Therefore, studies with larger sample sizes and homogeneity were required to determine the effects of telecare in patients with LLD. Future research can continue to refine telecare systems and assess the specific needs of older vulnerable populations for more accurate evidence.

    Acknowledgments

    This project was jointly supported by the Hubei Provincial Natural Science Foundation and the Innovative Development of Chinese Medicine of China (2023AFD160).

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    PRISMA checklist.

    DOCX File , 28 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    Search strategy.

    DOC File , 17 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 3

    The intervention content of the intervention group.

    DOC File , 26 KB
    1. Ageing and health. World Health Organization. 2022. URL: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health [accessed 2024-01-02]
    2. Taylor WD. Depression in the elderly. N Engl J Med. Sep 25, 2014;371(13):1228-1236. [CrossRef]
    3. Unützer J, Katon W, Callahan CM, Williams JW, Hunkeler E, Harpole L, et al. IMPACT Investigators. Improving Mood-Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment. Collaborative care management of late-life depression in the primary care setting: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. Dec 11, 2002;288(22):2836-2845. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Hu T, Zhao X, Wu M, Li Z, Luo L, Yang C, et al. Prevalence of depression in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Res. May 2022;311:114511. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Alexopoulos GS. Depression in the elderly. The Lancet. Jun 2005;365(9475):1961-1970. [CrossRef]
    6. Gundersen E, Bensadon B. Geriatric Depression. Prim Care. Mar 2023;50(1):143-158. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Katon WJ, Lin E, Russo J, Unutzer J. Increased medical costs of a population-based sample of depressed elderly patients. Arch Gen Psychiatry. Sep 01, 2003;60(9):897-903. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Li M, Cai J, Zhang P, Fei C, Xu F. Drug brand response and its impact on compliance and efficacy in depression patients. Front Pharmacol. Jan 10, 2016;7:540. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Heidenreich PA. Patient adherence: the next frontier in quality improvement. Am J Med. Jul 15, 2004;117(2):130-132. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Caldwell T, Jorm AF, Knox S, Braddock D, Dear KBG, Britt H. General practice encounters for psychological problems in rural, remote and metropolitan areas in Australia. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. Oct 21, 2004;38(10):774-780. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Harerimana B, Forchuk C, O'Regan T. The use of technology for mental healthcare delivery among older adults with depressive symptoms: a systematic literature review. Int J Ment Health Nurs. Jun 2019;28(3):657-670. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Barney LJ, Griffiths KM, Jorm AF, Christensen H. Stigma about depression and its impact on help-seeking intentions. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. Jan 2006;40(1):51-54. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Bohlmeijer E, Smit F, Cuijpers P. Effects of reminiscence and life review on late‐life depression: a meta‐analysis. Int J Geriat Psychiatry. Dec 09, 2003;18(12):1088-1094. [CrossRef]
    14. Birren J, Cohen G, Sloane R. Handbook of Mental Health and Aging. San Diego, CA. Academic Press; 2013.
    15. Topol E. Digital medicine: empowering both patients and clinicians. The Lancet. Aug 2016;388(10046):740-741. [CrossRef]
    16. The Audit Commission. Implementing Telecare - The Learning Exchange. London, United Kingdom. The Audit Commission; 2004;2022.
    17. Kim EH, Gellis ZD, Bradway CK, Kenaley B. Depression care services and telehealth technology use for homebound elderly in the United States. Aging Ment Health. Sep 24, 2019;23(9):1164-1173. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. The Knowledge Network. URL: http://www.knowledge.scot.nhs.uk/home.aspx [accessed 2024-01-02]
    19. Richardson LK, Frueh BC, Grubaugh AL, Egede L, Elhai JD. Current directions in videoconferencing tele-mental health research. Clin Psychol (New York). Sep 01, 2009;16(3):323-338. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Gellis ZD, Kenaley B, McGinty J, Bardelli E, Davitt J, Ten Have T. Outcomes of a telehealth intervention for homebound older adults with heart or chronic respiratory failure: a randomized controlled trial. Gerontologist. Aug 2012;52(4):541-552. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Naik AD, Hundt NE, Vaughan EM, Petersen NJ, Zeno D, Kunik ME, et al. Effect of telephone-delivered collaborative goal setting and behavioral activation vs enhanced usual care for depression among adults with uncontrolled diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. Aug 02, 2019;2(8):e198634. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Dobkin RD, Menza M, Allen LA, Tiu J, Friedman J, Bienfait KL, et al. Telephone-based cognitive-behavioral therapy for depression in Parkinson disease. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. Dec 05, 2011;24(4):206-214. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Lee H, Yoon J, Lim Y, Jung H, Kim S, Yoo Y, et al. The effect of nurse-led problem-solving therapy on coping, self-efficacy and depressive symptoms for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomised controlled trial. Age Ageing. May 2015;44(3):397-403. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Katon WJ. Clinical and health services relationships between major depression, depressive symptoms, and general medical illness. Biol Psychiatry. Aug 01, 2003;54(3):216-226. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Andersson G, Cuijpers P. Internet-based and other computerized psychological treatments for adult depression: a meta-analysis. Cogn Behav Ther. 2009;38(4):196-205. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Giovanetti AK, Punt SE, Nelson E, Ilardi SS. Teletherapy versus in-person psychotherapy for depression: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Telemed J E Health. Aug 01, 2022;28(8):1077-1089. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. García-Lizana F, Muñoz-Mayorga I. Telemedicine for depression: a systematic review. Perspect Psychiatr Care. Apr 2010;46(2):119-126. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Kivelitz L, Kriston L, Christalle E, Schulz H, Watzke B, Härter M, et al. Effectiveness of telephone-based aftercare case management for adult patients with unipolar depression compared to usual care: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. Oct 27, 2017;12(10):e0186967. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. de Oliveira PBF, Dornelles TM, Gosmann NP, Camozzato A. Efficacy of telemedicine interventions for depression and anxiety in older people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. May 19, 2023;38(5):e5920. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. Jul 21, 2009;6(7):e1000097. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Rollman BL, Belnap BH, LeMenager MS, Mazumdar S, Houck PR, Counihan PJ, et al. Telephone-delivered collaborative care for treating post-CABG depression: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. Nov 18, 2009;302(19):2095-2103. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Aburizik A, Dindo L, Kaboli P, Charlton M, Dawn K, Turvey C. A pilot randomized controlled trial of a depression and disease management program delivered by phone. J Affect Disord. Nov 2013;151(2):769-774. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Villani A, Malfatto G, Compare A, Rosa FD, Bellardita L, Branzi G, et al. Clinical and psychological telemonitoring and telecare of high risk heart failure patients. J Telemed Telecare. Oct 22, 2014;20(8):468-475. [CrossRef]
    34. Pickett YR, Kennedy GJ, Freeman K, Cummings J, Woolis W. The effect of telephone-facilitated depression care on older, medically ill patients. J Behav Health Serv Res. Jan 10, 2014;41(1):90-96. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. O'Neil A, Taylor B, Sanderson K, Cyril S, Chan B, Hawkes AL, et al. MoodCare Investigator Team. Efficacy and feasibility of a tele-health intervention for acute coronary syndrome patients with depression: results of the "MoodCare" randomized controlled trial. Ann Behav Med. Oct 26, 2014;48(2):163-174. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Gellis ZD, Kenaley BL, Ten Have T. Integrated telehealth care for chronic illness and depression in geriatric home care patients: the Integrated Telehealth Education and Activation of Mood (I-TEAM) study. J Am Geriatr Soc. May 2014;62(5):889-895. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Yang L, Wang X, Cui X. Patients' intensive telephone-based care program reduces depression in coronary artery disease patients and may contribute to favorable overall survival by decreasing depression. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2019;34(3):236-243. [CrossRef]
    38. Almeida OP, Patel H, Kelly R, Ford A, Flicker L, Robinson S, et al. Preventing depression among older people living in rural areas: a randomised controlled trial of behavioural activation in collaborative care. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. Apr 31, 2021;36(4):530-539. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Koehler J, Stengel A, Hofmann T, Wegscheider K, Koehler K, Sehner S, et al. Telemonitoring in patients with chronic heart failure and moderate depressed symptoms: results of the Telemedical Interventional Monitoring in Heart Failure (TIM-HF) study. Eur J Heart Fail. Jan 09, 2021;23(1):186-194. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 6.3). Chichester, United Kingdom. John Wiley & Sons; 2022.
    41. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. Jul 1992;112(1):155-159. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. Sep 13, 1997;315(7109):629-634. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Bujnowska-Fedak M, Grata-Borkowska U. Use of telemedicine-based care for the aging and elderly: promises and pitfalls. SHTT. May 2015:91. [CrossRef]
    44. Hamm ME, Karp JF, Lenard E, Dawdani A, Lavretsky H, Lenze EJ, et al. "What else can we do?"-Provider perspectives on treatment-resistant depression in late life. J Am Geriatr Soc. Apr 03, 2022;70(4):1190-1197. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Watt J, Fahim C, Straus S, Goodarzi Z. Barriers and facilitators to virtual care in a geriatric medicine clinic: a semi-structured interview study of patient, caregiver and healthcare provider perspectives. Age Ageing. Jan 06, 2022;51(1):a. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Lam K, Lu AD, Shi Y, Covinsky KE. Assessing telemedicine unreadiness among older adults in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Intern Med. Oct 01, 2020;180(10):1389-1391. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Lecomte T, Potvin S, Corbière M, Guay S, Samson C, Cloutier B, et al. Mobile apps for mental health issues: meta-review of meta-analyses. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. May 29, 2020;8(5):e17458. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. Fried EI. The 52 symptoms of major depression: lack of content overlap among seven common depression scales. J Affect Disord. Jan 15, 2017;208:191-197. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Fortney JC, Pyne JM, Edlund MJ, Williams DK, Robinson DE, Mittal D, et al. A randomized trial of telemedicine-based collaborative care for depression. J Gen Intern Med. Aug 2007;22(8):1086-1093. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Shoji M, Maeda H, Watanabe F, Tanuma K, Fujiwara A, Iwanaga Y, et al. A non-randomized, controlled, interventional study to investigate the effects of community pharmacists' cognitive behavioral therapy-based interventions on medication adherence and relevant indicators in patients with depression. BMC Psychiatry. Feb 24, 2023;23(1):124. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. Gokalp H, de Folter J, Verma V, Fursse J, Jones R, Clarke M. Integrated telehealth and telecare for monitoring frail elderly with chronic disease. Telemed J E Health. Dec 2018;24(12):940-957. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Jiang C, Zhu F, Qin T. Relationships between chronic diseases and depression among middle-aged and elderly people in china: a prospective study from CHARLS. Curr Med Sci. Oct 2020;40(5):858-870. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    53. Sivakumar PT, Mukku SSR, Kar N, Manjunatha N, Phutane VH, Sinha P, et al. Geriatric telepsychiatry: promoting access to geriatric mental health care beyond the physical barriers. Indian J Psychol Med. Oct 2020;42(5 Suppl):41S-46S. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Dlouhy M. Mental health care system and mental health expenditures in the Czech Republic. J Ment Health Policy Econ. Dec 2004;7(4):159-165. [Medline]
    55. Edworthy SM. Telemedicine in developing countries. BMJ. Sep 08, 2001;323(7312):524-525. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Ando M, Kao Y, Lee Y, Tai S, Mendez SR, Sasaki K, et al. Remote cognitive behavioral therapy for older adults with anxiety symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare. Feb 16, 2023:1357633X2311517. [CrossRef]
    57. Gustafson DH, Mares M, Johnston DC, Mahoney JE, Brown RT, Landucci G, et al. A web-based eHealth intervention to improve the quality of life of older adults with multiple chronic conditions: protocol for a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res Protoc. Feb 19, 2021;10(2):e25175. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Almeida OP, Draper B, Pirkis J, Snowdon J, Lautenschlager NT, Byrne G, et al. Anxiety, depression, and comorbid anxiety and depression: risk factors and outcome over two years. Int Psychogeriatr. Jun 12, 2012;24(10):1622-1632. [CrossRef]
    59. Krzyzaniak N, Greenwood H, Scott AM, Peiris R, Cardona M, Clark J, et al. The effectiveness of telehealth versus face-to face interventions for anxiety disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare. Dec 03, 2021:1357633X211053738. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    60. Dorsey ER, Topol EJ. State of telehealth. N Engl J Med. Jul 14, 2016;375(2):154-161. [CrossRef]
    61. Welsh S, Hassiotis A, O'Mahoney G, Deahl M. Big brother is watching you--the ethical implications of electronic surveillance measures in the elderly with dementia and in adults with learning difficulties. Aging Ment Health. Sep 2003;7(5):372-375. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Arian M, Valinejadi A, Soleimani M. Quality of life in heart patients receiving telerehabilitation: an overview with meta-analyses. Iran J Public Health. Nov 19, 2022;51(11):2388-2403. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    63. Wong AKC, Bayuo J, Wong FKY, Yuen WS, Lee AYL, Chang PK, et al. Effects of a nurse-led telehealth self-care promotion program on the quality of life of community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. Mar 21, 2022;24(3):e31912. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    64. Hajek A, Brettschneider C, Ernst A, Lange C, Wiese B, Prokein J, et al. Complex coevolution of depression and health-related quality of life in old age. Qual Life Res. Nov 19, 2015;24(11):2713-2722. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. Cichosz SL, Udsen FW, Hejlesen O. The impact of telehealth care on health-related quality of life of patients with heart failure: results from the Danish TeleCare North heart failure trial. J Telemed Telecare. 2020;26(7-8):452-461. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. Bohingamu Mudiyanselage S, Stevens J, Watts JJ, Toscano J, Kotowicz MA, Steinfort CL, et al. Personalised telehealth intervention for chronic disease management: a pilot randomised controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare. May 24, 2018;25(6):343-352. [CrossRef]
    67. Pecina JL, Hanson GJ, Van Houten H, Takahashi PY. Impact of telemonitoring on older adults health-related quality of life: the Tele-ERA study. Qual Life Res. Nov 14, 2013;22(9):2315-2321. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    68. Sinnott C, Mc Hugh S, Browne J, Bradley C. GPs' perspectives on the management of patients with multimorbidity: systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. BMJ Open. Sep 13, 2013;3(9):e003610. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    LLD: late-life depression
    MeSH: Medical Subject Headings
    PHQ-9: Patient Health Questionnaire-9
    PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
    QoL: quality of life
    RCT: randomized controlled trial
    SMD: standardized mean difference
    UC: usual care

    Edited by L Buis; submitted 12.07.23; peer-reviewed by W He, X Tan, S Peng; comments to author 15.11.23; revised version received 01.12.23; accepted 22.12.23; published 17.01.24.

    Copyright

    ©Man Wu, Chaoyang Li, Ting Hu, Xueyang Zhao, Guiyuan Qiao, Xiaolian Gao, Xinhong Zhu, Fen Yang. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (https://mhealth.jmir.org), 17.01.2024.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.