A scoping review and intersectionality‐based analysis of heart failure telehealth interventions for vulnerable populations

Abstract

AbstractAimsTo map the existing body of heart failure (HF) telehealth interventions for vulnerable populations, and to conduct an intersectionality‐based analysis utilizing a structured checklist.DesignA scoping review and intersectionality‐based analysis.Data SourcesThe search was conducted in March 2022 in the following databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.Review MethodsFirst, the titles and abstracts were screened, and then the entire articles were screened against the inclusion criteria. Two of the investigators screened the articles independently in Covidence. The studies included and excluded at various stages of screening were depicted through a PRISMA flow diagram. The quality of the included studies was assessed based on the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT). Each study was read thoroughly and the intersectionality‐based checklist by Ghasemi et al. (2021) was applied, whereby a yes/no response was marked for each question on the checklist and the relevant supporting data were extracted.ResultsA total of 22 studies were included in this review. About 42.2% of the responses indicated that studies incorporated the principles of intersectionality at the ‘problem identification’ stage, followed by 42.9% and 29.44% responses indicating incorporation of these principles at the ‘design and implementation’ and ‘evaluation’ stages respectively.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that the research around HF telehealth interventions for vulnerable populations is not adequately grounded in appropriate theoretical underpinning. The principles of intersectionality have been applied mostly to the problem identification and the intervention development and implementation stages, and not so much at the evaluation stage. Future research must fill the identified gaps in this area of research.No Patient or Public ContributionSince this was a scoping, there was no patient contribution to this work; however, based on this study's findings, we are undertaking patient‐centred studies with patient contribution.