An empirically sound telemedicine taxonomy – applying the CAFE methodology

[Telemedicine for patients with facial palsy : Current developments and options in otorhinolaryngologic treatment]

Digitalization is also becoming increasingly important in medicine. The COVID-19 pandemic has further accelerated this process and politicians are trying to create a framework for successful knowledge transfer and better digital medical care. This article describes the role of telemedicine in the treatment of patients suffering from facial nerve palsy. Facial nerve palsy has a wide range of effects, from limitations in facial mobility to psychological sequelae. While many of the acute, idiopathic facial nerve palsies improve after a few weeks, around a third of those affected develop synkinesis, involuntary movements that have lifelong functional and psychological consequences. Treatment includes various modalities, from medication and surgery to movement training. Telemedicine offers innovative solutions in cases of regional underuse, but also in the treatment of chronic facial nerve palsies. The article defines the term "telemedicine" in the current context and presents different types of application. A detailed analysis of the application scenarios of telemedicine in facial nerve palsy patients shows that despite a lack of evidence, many potentially useful concepts exist.

Patients' perspectives and preferences toward telemedicine versus in-person visits: a mixed-methods study on 1226 patients

INTRODUCTION

Despite the fact that telemedicine can eliminate geographical and time limitations and offer the possibility of diagnosing, treating, and preventing diseases by sharing reliable information, many individuals still prefer to visit medical centers for in-person consultations. The aim of this study was to determine the level of acceptance of telemedicine compared to in-person visits, identify the perceived advantages of telemedicine over in-person visits, and to explore the reasons why patients choose either of these two types of visits.

METHODS

We developed a questionnaire using the rational method. The questionnaire consisted of multiple-choice questions and one open-ended question. A total of 2059 patients were invited to participate in the study. Chi-square tests and descriptive statistics were employed for data analysis. To analyze the data from the open-ended question, we conducted qualitative content analysis using MAXQDA 18.

RESULTS

Out of the 1226 participants who completed the questionnaire, 865 (71%) preferred in-person visits, while 361 (29%) preferred telemedicine. Factors such as education level, specific health conditions, and prior experience with telemedicine influenced the preference for telemedicine. The participants provided a total of 183 different reasons for choosing either telemedicine (108 reasons) or in-person visits (75 reasons). Avoiding infectious diseases, saving cost, and eliminating and overcoming geographical distance barriers were three primary telemedicine benefits. The primary reasons for selecting an in-person visit were: more accurate diagnosis of the disease, more accurate and better examination of the patient by the physician, and more accurate and better treatment of the disease.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrate that despite the numerous benefits offered by telemedicine, the majority of patients still exhibit a preference for in-person visits. In order to promote broader acceptance of telemedicine, it becomes crucial for telemedicine services to address patient preferences and concerns effectively. Employing effective change management strategies can aid in overcoming resistance and facilitating the widespread adoption of telemedicine within the population.

The Use of Digital Health Services Among Patients and Citizens Living at Home: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

The development of digital health services reflects not only the technical development of services but also a change in attitude and the way of thinking. It has become a cornerstone for engaging and activating patients and citizens in health management while living at home. Digital health services are also aimed at enhancing the efficiency and quality of services, while simultaneously providing services more cost-effectively. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated worldwide the development and use of digital services in response to requirements for social distancing and other regulations.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review is to identify and summarize how digital health services are being used among patients and citizens while living at home.

METHODS

The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews was used as guidance. A search conducted in 3 databases (CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus) resulted in 419 papers. The reporting was conducted by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR), and the analysis of the included papers was performed using a framework consisting of 5 clusters describing the use of digital health services. After screening and excluding papers that did not match the inclusion criteria, 88 (21%) papers from 2010 to 2022 were included in the final analysis.

RESULTS

Results indicated that digital health services are used in different situations and among different kinds of populations. In most studies, digital health services were used in the form of video visits or consultations. The telephone was also used regularly for consultations. Other services, such as remote monitoring and transmitting of recorded information and the use the of internet or portals for searching information, were observed as well. Alerts, emergency systems, and reminders were observed to offer possibilities of use, for example, among older people. The digital health services also showed to have potential for use in patient education.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of digital services reflects a shift toward the provision of care regardless of time and place. It also reflects a shift toward emphasis on patient-centered care, meaning activating and engaging patients in their own care as they use digital services for various health-related purposes. Despite the development of digital services, many challenges (eg, adequate infrastructure) still prevail worldwide.

Definition of a Method for the Evaluation of Telemedicine Platforms in the Italian Context

Background: The COVID-19 outbreak led to the diffusion of several telemedicine solutions. The choice of the correct platform is crucial for ensuring the release of effective assistance. However, there is a lack of an objective method for the assessment of technical features. Objective: This study proposes a methodology for the evaluation of functional requirements of telemedicine platforms. This approach also permits the comparison of solutions in the Italian market by means of defined parameters, thus directing the choice of health care professionals. Methods: The study is divided into three phases. First, a mapping of the telemedicine platforms operating in Italy is performed. Then, the available platforms are selected based on the offered telemedicine activity. Finally, a method for evaluating the investigated platforms is defined. Results: Thirty-three (n = 33) technological systems were identified through an accurate investigation on the web and interviews with IT companies. Fifteen parameters were defined and organized into three categories: (1) usability of the telemedicine platform, (2) security, and (3) technological and organizational aspects. A score between 1 and 4 was assigned to each parameter, proportionally to the completeness of the platform. In particular, 62.96% of platforms reached an average score between 3.01 and 4 points; 33.33% of them had scores between 2.01 and 3, while the remaining 3.70% of solutions obtained a result between 1.01 and 2. Conclusions: The study provides an evaluation approach that is easily usable by health professionals to select the most suitable platform. The number of solutions and quality of information could be updated to obtain a complete tool.

[Areas of application for teledermatology]

Hintergrund

In den letzten Jahren wurden mit dem E‑Health-Gesetz und der Lockerung des Fernbehandlungsverbotes die Rahmenbedingungen für die Telemedizin in Deutschland verbessert.

Fragestellung

Das Ziel dieses Beitrags ist es, eine Übersicht wichtiger Anwendungsgebiete der Teledermatologie darzustellen.

Material und Methode

Erstellt wurde eine narrative Übersichtsarbeit von nationalen und internationalen Studien und Projekten zum Einsatz der Teledermatologie für die Diagnosestellung, die Verlaufskontrolle, die Triage zwischen Haus- und Hautärzten sowie den Einsatz in Einrichtungen mit organisatorisch und/oder geografisch erschwertem Zugang zu fachmedizinischer Versorgung.

Ergebnisse

Diagnostische Anwendungen ermöglichen in einem Großteil der Fälle die teledermatologische Beurteilung bei hoher Konkordanz der Diagnose und Patientenzufriedenheit. In der Versorgung chronischer Patienten wurde in der Mehrzahl von Studien nachgewiesen, dass kein Unterschied in der Effektivität der Behandlung zwischen der Präsenz- und Fernbehandlung vorliegt und Patienten Anfahrtswege und Wartezeiten einsparen. Bei dermatologischen Fällen, die mithilfe der Teletriage evaluiert wurden, konnte ein Großteil beim Hausarzt verbleiben. Gleichzeitig wurden Patienten identifiziert, die schnellstmöglich beim Hautarzt vorstellig werden sollten. In besonderen Einrichtungen wie Justizvollzugsanstalten werden dermatologische Telekonsile erfolgreich eingesetzt.

Diskussion

Für die Nutzung der Teledermatologie in Deutschland liegen hinreichende Rahmenbedingungen und eine befriedigende Evidenz vor. Die Anwendungsbereiche sind detailliert in der S2k-Leitlinie der Teledermatologie abgebildet. Es besteht das Risiko, dass der Zugang zur Telemedizin für bestimmte Bevölkerungsgruppen erschwert sein könnte.

Non-use of telemedicine: A scoping review

Many telemedicine interventions fail to be implemented in medical care with non-use and discontinued use by patients being among the major reasons. The aim of this scoping review was to provide an overview of barriers associated with non-use and discontinued use of telemedicine. An electronic search was conducted in Pubmed in October 2019 and updated in November 2020, followed by a hand search in the beginning of 2021. All potential articles were screened by two independent reviewers based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A qualitative content analysis according to Mayring was carried out. The topics 'intervention', 'context of use' and 'user' were chosen as overarching themes. Out of 1377 potentially relevant articles, 73 were included. User-related barriers were mentioned in most of the analysed studies, followed by barriers related to the intervention. The analysis provides the basis for overcoming non-use issues in telemedicine.

Use of Patient-reported Outcome Measures and Patient-reported Experience Measures within Evaluation Studies of Telemedicine Applications: Systematic Review

Background

With the rise of digital health technologies and telemedicine, the need for evidence-based evaluation is growing. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are recommended as an essential part of the evaluation of telemedicine. For the first time, a systematic review has been conducted to investigate the use of PROMs and PREMs in the evaluation studies of telemedicine covering all application types and medical purposes.

Objective

This study investigates the following research questions: in which scenarios are PROMs and PREMs collected for evaluation purposes, which PROM and PREM outcome domains have been covered and how often, which outcome measurement instruments have been used and how often, does the selection and quantity of PROMs and PREMs differ between study types and application types, and has the use of PROMs and PREMs changed over time.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search of the MEDLINE and Embase databases and included studies published from inception until April 2, 2020. We included studies evaluating telemedicine with patients as the main users; these studies reported PROMs and PREMs within randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, noncontrolled trials, and feasibility trials in English and German.

Results

Of the identified 2671 studies, 303 (11.34%) were included; of the 303 studies, 67 (22.1%) were feasibility studies, 70 (23.1%) were noncontrolled trials, 20 (6.6%) were controlled trials, and 146 (48.2%) were randomized controlled trials. Health-related quality of life (n=310; mean 1.02, SD 1.05), emotional function (n=244; mean 0.81, SD 1.18), and adherence (n=103; mean 0.34, SD 0.53) were the most frequently assessed outcome domains. Self-developed PROMs were used in 21.4% (65/303) of the studies, and self-developed PREMs were used in 22.3% (68/303). PROMs (n=884) were assessed more frequently than PREMs (n=234). As the evidence level of the studies increased, the number of PROMs also increased (τ=−0.45), and the number of PREMs decreased (τ=0.35). Since 2000, not only has the number of studies using PROMs and PREMs increased, but the level of evidence and the number of outcome measurement instruments used have also increased, with the number of PREMs permanently remaining at a lower level.

Conclusions

There have been increasingly more studies, particularly high-evidence studies, which use PROMs and PREMs to evaluate telemedicine. PROMs have been used more frequently than PREMs. With the increasing maturity stage of telemedicine applications and higher evidence level, the use of PROMs increased in line with the recommendations of evaluation guidelines. Health-related quality of life and emotional function were measured in almost all the studies. Simultaneously, health literacy as a precondition for using the application adequately, alongside proper training and guidance, has rarely been reported. Further efforts should be pursued to standardize PROM and PREM collection in evaluation studies of telemedicine.