1
|
Pannunzio V, Morales Ornelas HC, Gurung P, van Kooten R, Snelders D, van Os H, Wouters M, Tollenaar R, Atsma D, Kleinsmann M. Patient and Staff Experience of Remote Patient Monitoring-What to Measure and How: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res 2024; 26:e48463. [PMID: 38648090 PMCID: PMC11074906 DOI: 10.2196/48463] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2023] [Revised: 08/25/2023] [Accepted: 02/20/2024] [Indexed: 04/25/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patient and staff experience is a vital factor to consider in the evaluation of remote patient monitoring (RPM) interventions. However, no comprehensive overview of available RPM patient and staff experience-measuring methods and tools exists. OBJECTIVE This review aimed at obtaining a comprehensive set of experience constructs and corresponding measuring instruments used in contemporary RPM research and at proposing an initial set of guidelines for improving methodological standardization in this domain. METHODS Full-text papers reporting on instances of patient or staff experience measuring in RPM interventions, written in English, and published after January 1, 2011, were considered for eligibility. By "RPM interventions," we referred to interventions including sensor-based patient monitoring used for clinical decision-making; papers reporting on other kinds of interventions were therefore excluded. Papers describing primary care interventions, involving participants under 18 years of age, or focusing on attitudes or technologies rather than specific interventions were also excluded. We searched 2 electronic databases, Medline (PubMed) and EMBASE, on February 12, 2021.We explored and structured the obtained corpus of data through correspondence analysis, a multivariate statistical technique. RESULTS In total, 158 papers were included, covering RPM interventions in a variety of domains. From these studies, we reported 546 experience-measuring instances in RPM, covering the use of 160 unique experience-measuring instruments to measure 120 unique experience constructs. We found that the research landscape has seen a sizeable growth in the past decade, that it is affected by a relative lack of focus on the experience of staff, and that the overall corpus of collected experience measures can be organized in 4 main categories (service system related, care related, usage and adherence related, and health outcome related). In the light of the collected findings, we provided a set of 6 actionable recommendations to RPM patient and staff experience evaluators, in terms of both what to measure and how to measure it. Overall, we suggested that RPM researchers and practitioners include experience measuring as part of integrated, interdisciplinary data strategies for continuous RPM evaluation. CONCLUSIONS At present, there is a lack of consensus and standardization in the methods used to measure patient and staff experience in RPM, leading to a critical knowledge gap in our understanding of the impact of RPM interventions. This review offers targeted support for RPM experience evaluators by providing a structured, comprehensive overview of contemporary patient and staff experience measures and a set of practical guidelines for improving research quality and standardization in this domain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Valeria Pannunzio
- Department of Design, Organisation and Strategy, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
| | - Hosana Cristina Morales Ornelas
- Department of Sustainable Design Engineering, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
| | - Pema Gurung
- Walaeus Library, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Robert van Kooten
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Dirk Snelders
- Department of Design, Organisation and Strategy, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
| | - Hendrikus van Os
- National eHealth Living Lab, Department of Public Health & Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Michel Wouters
- Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Rob Tollenaar
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Douwe Atsma
- Department of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Maaike Kleinsmann
- Department of Design, Organisation and Strategy, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
den Bakker CM, Schaafsma FG, Consten ECJ, Schraffordt Koops SE, van der Meij E, van de Ven PM, Bonjer HJ, Huirne JAF, Anema JR. Personalised electronic health programme for recovery after major abdominal surgery: a multicentre, single-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Digit Health 2023:S2589-7500(23)00084-5. [PMID: 37419843 DOI: 10.1016/s2589-7500(23)00084-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2022] [Revised: 01/25/2023] [Accepted: 04/12/2023] [Indexed: 07/09/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite the adoption of minimally invasive techniques, recovery after abdominal surgery takes a long time. Electronic health (eHealth) modalities can provide guidance to patients, facilitating early return to normal activities. We aimed to assess the impact of a personalised eHealth programme on patients' return to normal activities after major abdominal surgery. METHODS This single-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial was done at 11 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Eligible participants were aged 18-75 years who underwent a laparoscopic or open colectomy or hysterectomy. An independent researcher randomly allocated participants (in a 1:1 ratio) to either the intervention or control group by use of computer-based randomisation lists, with stratification by sex, type of surgery, and hospital. Participants in the intervention group had access to a perioperative, personalised eHealth programme consisting of both standard face-to-face care and eHealth, that comprised interactive tools offering goal attainment and a personalised outcome measurement, which managed recovery expectations and provided postoperative guidance tailored to each patient. Patients were provided with an activity tracker and had access to a website and mobile app with an electronic consultation (eConsult) functionality. The control group received standard care and access to a placebo website containing recovery advice provided by the hospital. The primary outcome was the number of days between surgery and personalised return to normal activities, assessed with Kaplan-Meier curves. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were done with a Cox regression model. This trial is registered with the Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR5686). FINDINGS Between Feb 11, 2016, and Aug 9, 2017, 355 participants were randomly assigned to the intervention (n=178) or control (n=177) groups. 342 participants were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The median time until return to normal activities was 52 days (IQR 33-111) in the intervention group, and 65 days (39-152) in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio 1·30 [95% CI 1·03-1·64]; p=0·027). The frequency of postoperative complications did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION This eHealth programme, delivering personalised care based on goal attainment scaling, enabled patients to return to their normal activities 13 days earlier than those who received standard care. FUNDING ZonMw.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chantal M den Bakker
- Department of Occupational and Public Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Department of Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Frederieke G Schaafsma
- Department of Occupational and Public Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Esther C J Consten
- Department of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, Netherlands; Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
| | | | - Eva van der Meij
- Department of Occupational and Public Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Peter M van de Ven
- Department of Data Science and Biostatistics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Hendrik J Bonjer
- Department of Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Judith A F Huirne
- Department of Occupational and Public Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Johannes R Anema
- Department of Occupational and Public Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
van der Storm SL, Bektaş M, Barsom EZ, Schijven MP. Mobile applications in gastrointestinal surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 2023:10.1007/s00464-023-10007-y. [PMID: 37016081 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10007-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2022] [Accepted: 03/09/2023] [Indexed: 04/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Mobile applications can facilitate or improve gastrointestinal surgical care by benefiting patients, healthcare providers, or both. The extent to which applications are currently in use in gastrointestinal surgical care is largely unknown, as reported in literature. This systematic review was conducted to provide an overview of the available gastrointestinal surgical applications and evaluate their prospects for surgical care provision. METHODS The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for articles up to October 6th 2022. Articles were considered eligible if they assessed or described mobile applications used in a gastrointestinal surgery setting for healthcare purposes. Two authors independently evaluated selected studies and extracted data for analysis. Descriptive data analysis was conducted. The revised Cochrane risk of bias (RoB-2) tool and ROBINS-I assessment tool were used to determine the methodological quality of studies. RESULTS Thirty-eight articles describing twenty-nine applications were included. The applications were classified into seven categories: monitoring, weight loss, postoperative recovery, education, communication, prognosis, and clinical decision-making. Most applications were reported for colorectal surgery, half of which focused on monitoring. Overall, a low-quality evidence was found. Most applications have only been evaluated on their usability or feasibility but not on the proposed clinical benefits. Studies with high quality evidence were identified in the areas of colorectal (2), hepatopancreatobiliary (1) and bariatric surgery (1), reporting significantly positive outcomes in terms of postoperative recovery, complications and weight loss. CONCLUSIONS The interest for applications and their use in gastrointestinal surgery is increasing. From our study, it appears that most studies using applications fail to report adequate clinical evaluation, and do not provide evidence on the effectiveness or safety of applications. Clinical evaluation of objective outcomes is much needed to evaluate the efficacy, quality and safety of applications being used as a medical device across user groups and settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sebastiaan L van der Storm
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Surgery, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health, Digital Health, Box 22660, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mustafa Bektaş
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Surgery, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health, Digital Health, Box 22660, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Esther Z Barsom
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Surgery, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health, Digital Health, Box 22660, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marlies P Schijven
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Surgery, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Amsterdam Public Health, Digital Health, Box 22660, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
van Deursen L, Versluis A, van der Vaart R, Standaar L, Struijs J, Chavannes N, Aardoom JJ. eHealth Interventions for Dutch Cancer Care: Systematic Review Using the Triple Aim Lens. JMIR Cancer 2022; 8:e37093. [PMID: 35699991 PMCID: PMC9240931 DOI: 10.2196/37093] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2022] [Revised: 04/15/2022] [Accepted: 04/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Globally, the burden of cancer on population health is growing. Recent trends such as increasing survival rates have resulted in a need to adapt cancer care to ensure a good care experience and manageable expenditures. eHealth is a promising way to increase the quality of cancer care and support patients and survivors. OBJECTIVE The aim of this systematic review was 2-fold. First, we aimed to provide an overview of eHealth interventions and their characteristics for Dutch patients with and survivors of cancer. Second, we aimed to provide an overview of the empirical evidence regarding the impact of eHealth interventions in cancer care on population health, quality of care, and per capita costs (the Triple Aim domains). METHODS The electronic databases Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane, and Ovid PsycINFO were searched using 3 key search themes: eHealth interventions, cancer care, and the Netherlands. The identified interventions were classified according to predetermined criteria describing the intervention characteristics (eg, type, function, and target population). Their impact was subsequently examined using the Triple Aim framework. RESULTS A total of 38 interventions were identified. Most of these were web portals or web applications functioning to inform and self-manage, and target psychosocial factors or problems. Few interventions have been tailored to age, disease severity, or gender. The results of this study indicate that eHealth interventions could positively affect sleep quality, fatigue, and physical activity of patients with and survivors of cancer. Inconclusive results were found regarding daily functioning and quality of life, psychological complaints, and psychological adjustment to the disease. CONCLUSIONS eHealth can improve outcomes in the Triple Aim domains, particularly in the population health and quality of care domains. Cancer-related pain and common symptoms of active treatment were not targeted in the included interventions and should receive more attention. Further research is needed to fully understand the impact of eHealth interventions in cancer care on participation, accessibility, and costs. The latter can be examined in economic evaluations by comparing eHealth interventions with care as usual.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liza van Deursen
- Department of Quality of Care and Health Economics, Center for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands
- National eHealth Living Lab, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Anke Versluis
- National eHealth Living Lab, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Rosalie van der Vaart
- Department of Quality of Care and Health Economics, Center for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands
| | - Lucille Standaar
- Department of Quality of Care and Health Economics, Center for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands
- Department of Quality and Organization of Care, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Jeroen Struijs
- Department of Quality of Care and Health Economics, Center for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands
- Health Campus The Hague, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, The Hague, Netherlands
| | - Niels Chavannes
- National eHealth Living Lab, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Jiska J Aardoom
- National eHealth Living Lab, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Richards HS, Portal A, Absolom K, Blazeby JM, Velikova G, Avery KNL. Patient experiences of an electronic PRO tailored feedback system for symptom management following upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery. Qual Life Res 2020; 30:3229-3239. [PMID: 32535864 PMCID: PMC8528794 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-020-02539-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/19/2020] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
Purpose Complications following upper gastrointestinal (UGI) surgery are common. Symptom-monitoring following discharge is not standardized. An electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) system providing feedback to patients and clinicians could support patients and improve outcomes. Little is known about patients’ experiences of using such systems. This qualitative sub-study explored patients’ perspectives of the benefits of using a novel ePRO system, developed as part of the mixed methods eRAPID pilot study, to support recovery following discharge after UGI surgery. Methods Patients completed the online ePRO symptom-report system post-discharge. Weekly interviews explored patients’ experiences of using ePRO, the acceptability of feedback generated and its value for supporting their recovery. Interviews were audio-recorded and targeted transcriptions were thematically analysed. Results Thirty-five interviews with 16 participants (11 men, mean age 63 years) were analysed. Two main themes were identified: (1) reassurance and (2) empowerment. Feelings of isolation were common; many patients felt uninformed regarding their expectations of recovery and whether their symptoms warranted clinical investigation. Participants were reassured by tailored feedback advising them to contact their care team, alleviating their anxiety. Patients reported feeling empowered by the ePRO system and in control of their symptoms and recovery. Conclusion Patients recovering at home following major cancer surgery regarded electronic symptom-monitoring and feedback as acceptable and beneficial. Patients perceived that the system enhanced information provision and provided a direct link to their care team. Patients felt that the system provided reassurance at a time of uncertainty and isolation, enabling them to feel in control of their symptoms and recovery. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-020-02539-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H S Richards
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
- Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
| | - A Portal
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| | - K Absolom
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James, St James's Hospital, University of Leeds, Bexley Wing, Beckett Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK
| | - J M Blazeby
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
- Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| | - G Velikova
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James, St James's Hospital, University of Leeds, Bexley Wing, Beckett Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK
| | - K N L Avery
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
- Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
den Bakker CM, Huirne JA, Schaafsma FG, de Geus C, Bonjer HJ, Anema JR. Electronic Health Program to Empower Patients in Returning to Normal Activities After Colorectal Surgical Procedures: Mixed-Methods Process Evaluation Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21:e10674. [PMID: 30694205 PMCID: PMC6371072 DOI: 10.2196/10674] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2018] [Revised: 07/12/2018] [Accepted: 07/16/2018] [Indexed: 01/22/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Long-term recovery takes longer than expected despite improved surgical techniques and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programs. An electronic health (eHealth) care program ("ikherstel") was developed to partially substitute perioperative care for patients undergoing colorectal surgical procedures. Successfully tested eHealth programs are not always implemented in usual care, and it is, therefore, important to evaluate the process to optimize future implementation. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the eHealth intervention was executed as planned. METHODS A mixed-methods process evaluation was carried out alongside a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT). This evaluation was performed using the Linnan and Steckler framework for the quantitative part of this study, measuring the components reach, dose delivered, dose received, fidelity, and participants' attitudes. Total implementation scores were calculated using the averaging approach, in which the sum of all data points is divided by the number of data points and the total adherence to the protocol is measured. For the qualitative part, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology framework was used. The quantitative data were based on participants' questionnaires, a logistic database, a weblog, and participants' medical files and were obtained by performing semistructured interviews with participants of the RCT. RESULTS A total of 151 participants of 340 eligible patients were included in the RCT, of which 73 participants were allocated to the intervention group. On the basis of the quantitative process data, total implementation scores for the website, mobile app, electronic consult, and activity tracker were 64%, 63%, 44%, and 67%, respectively. Participants in the qualitative part experienced the program as supportive and provided guidance on their recovery process after colorectal surgery. Most frequently mentioned barriers were the limited interaction with and feedback from health care professionals and the lack of tailoring of the convalescence plan in case of a different course of recovery. CONCLUSIONS The intervention needs more interaction with and feedback from health care professionals and needs more tailored guidance in case of different recovery or treatment courses. To ensure a successful implementation of the program in daily practice, some adjustments are required to optimize the program in a blended care form. TRIAL REGISTRATION Netherlands Trial Registry NTR5686; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC= 5686 (Archieved by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/75LrJaHrr).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chantal M den Bakker
- Department of Occupational and Public Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Judith Af Huirne
- Department of Gynecology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Frederieke G Schaafsma
- Department of Occupational and Public Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Charlotte de Geus
- Department of Occupational and Public Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Hendrik J Bonjer
- Department of Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Johannes R Anema
- Department of Occupational and Public Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|