Dataset Information

ASSESSMENT OF MAST IN EUROPEAN PATIENT-CENTERED TELEMEDICINE PILOTS.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Model for ASsessment of Telemedicine Applications (MAST) is a health technology assessment (HTA) inspired framework for assessing the effectiveness and contribution to quality of telemedicine applications based on rigorous, scientific data. This study reports from a study of how it was used and perceived in twenty-one pilots of the European project RENEWING HEALTH (RH). The objectives of RH were to implement large-scale, real-life test beds for the validation and subsequent evaluation of innovative patient-centered telemedicine services. The study is a contribution to the appraisal of HTA methods.

Methods

A questionnaire was administered for project leaders of the pilots. It included questions about use and usefulness of MAST for (i) preceding considerations, (ii) evaluation of outcomes within seven domains, and (iii) considerations of transferability. Free text spaces allowed for proposals of improvement. The responses covered all pilots. A quantitative summary of use and a qualitative analysis of usefulness were performed.

Results

MAST was used and considered useful for pilot evaluations. Challenges included problems to scientifically determine alternative service options and outcome within the seven domains. Proposals for improvement included process studies and adding domains of technological usability, responsible innovation, health literacy, behavior change, caregiver perspectives and motivational issues of professionals.

Conclusions

MAST was used according to its structure. Its usefulness in patient centered pilots can be improved by adding new stakeholder groups. Interdependencies between scientific rigor, resources and timeliness should be addressed. Operational options for improvements include process studies, literature reviews and sequential mini-HTAs for identification of areas for more elaborate investigations.

SUBMITTER: Ekeland AG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4762236 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

ASSESSMENT OF MAST IN EUROPEAN PATIENT-CENTERED TELEMEDICINE PILOTS.

Ekeland Anne Granstrøm AG Grøttland Astrid A

International journal of technology assessment in health care 20150101 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>Model for ASsessment of Telemedicine Applications (MAST) is a health technology assessment (HTA) inspired framework for assessing the effectiveness and contribution to quality of telemedicine applications based on rigorous, scientific data. This study reports from a study of how it was used and perceived in twenty-one pilots of the European project RENEWING HEALTH (RH). The objectives of RH were to implement large-scale, real-life test beds for the validation and subsequent ev ...[more]

PMID: 26679197

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTelemedicine has been adopted in the inpatient setting to facilitate clinical interactions between on-site clinicians and isolated hospitalized patients. Such remote interactions have the potential to reduce pathogen exposure and use of personal protective equipment but may also pose new safety concerns given prior evidence that isolated patients can receive suboptimal care. Formal evaluations of the use and practical acceptance of inpatient telemedicine among hospitalized patients are lacking.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate the experience of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with inpatient telemedicine introduced as an infection control measure during the pandemic.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative evaluation in a COVID-19 designated non-intensive care hospital unit at a large academic health center (Stanford Health Care) from October 2020 through January 2021. Semistructured qualitative interviews focused on patient experience, impact on quality of care, communication, and mental health. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants representing diversity across varying demographics until thematic saturation was reached. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using an inductive-deductive approach.ResultsInterviews with 20 hospitalized patients suggested that nonemergency clinical care and bridging to in-person care comprised the majority of inpatient telemedicine use. Nurses were reported to enter the room and call on the tablet far more frequently than physicians, who typically entered the room at least daily. Patients reported broad acceptance of the technology, citing improved convenience and reduced anxiety, but preferred in-person care where possible. Quality of care was believed to be similar to in-person care with the exception of a few patients who wanted more frequent in-person examinations. Ongoing challenges included low audio volume, shifting tablet location, and inconsistent verbal introductions from the clinical team.ConclusionsPatient experiences with inpatient telemedicine were largely favorable. Although most patients expressed a preference for in-person care, telemedicine was acceptable given the circumstances associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Improvements in technical and care team use may enhance acceptability. Further evaluation is needed to understand the impact of inpatient telemedicine and the optimal balance between in-person and virtual care in the hospital setting.

Project description:Purpose:Evaluate efficiency, precision, and validity of RetCAT, which comprises ten diabetic retinopathy (DR) quality of life (QoL) computerized adaptive tests (CATs). Methods:In this cross-sectional clinical study, 183 English and/or Mandarin-speaking participants with DR (mean age ± standard deviation [SD] 56.4 ± 11.9 years; 38% proliferative DR [worse eye]) were recruited from retinal clinics in Singapore. Participants answered the RetCAT tests (Symptoms, Activity Limitation, Mobility, Emotional, Health Concerns, Social, Convenience, Economic, Driving, and Lighting), which were capped at seven items each, and other questionnaires, and underwent eye tests. Our primary evaluation focused on RetCAT efficiency (i.e. standard error of measurement [SEM] ± SD achieved and time needed to complete each CAT). Secondary evaluations included an assessment of RetCAT's test precision and validity. Results:Mean SEM across all RetCAT tests was 0.351, ranging from 0.272 ± 0.130 for Economic to 0.484 ± 0.130 for Emotional. Four tests (Mobility, Social, Convenience, and Driving) had a high level of measurement error. The median time to take each RetCAT test was 1.79 minutes, ranging from 1.12 (IQR [interquartile range] 1.63) for Driving to 3.28 (IQR 2.52) for Activity Limitation. Test precision was highest for participants at the most impaired end of the spectrum. Most RetCAT tests displayed expected correlations with other scales (convergent/divergent validity) and were sensitive to DR and/or vision impairment severity levels (criterion validity). Conclusions:RetCAT can provide efficient, precise, and valid measurement of DR-related QoL impact. Future application of RetCAT will employ a stopping rule based on SE rather than number of items to ensure that all tests can detect meaningful differences in person abilities. Responsiveness of RetCAT to treatment interventions must also be determined. Translational Relevance:RetCAT may be useful for measuring the patient-centered impact of DR severity and disease progression and evaluating the effectiveness of new therapies.

Project description:BackgroundThe Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR) Dissemination and Implementation (D&I) Initiative identifies and prioritizes PCOR findings that could improve health care if widely implemented. To inform PCOR implementation investments, AHRQ sought to assess feasibility of widely implementing impactful PCOR findings with good strength of evidence in clinical practice.ObjectiveTo develop criteria to assess the feasibility of widely implementing nominated PCOR findings.MethodsWe reviewed literature and interviewed thirteen D&I experts to identify factors affecting feasibility of implementing PCOR findings. We grouped similar factors into themes. Fourteen technical expert panel (TEP) members discussed the face-validity and relative merits of the themes and additional factors, applied themes to fictional case studies, and prioritized themes for assessing feasibility. We developed criteria and guiding questions with a 3-point Likert scale. Seven D&I experts pilot-tested the criteria using sample nominations of PCOR findings. Experts represented diverse views of implementation from federal and state government agencies, research institutions, and quality improvement and advocacy organizations.Key resultsWe developed a set of three essential criteria for AHRQ to assess feasibility of widely implementing PCOR findings to be widely implementable: (1) acceptability to the implementers; (2) generalizability, adaptability, and ease of implementing with fidelity; and (3) alignment with external policies and incentives. Two supplemental criteria, (1) the presence of a plan or toolkit supporting implementation, or (2) evidence supporting implementation outside the research setting, can enhance reviewers' confidence in the intervention's feasibility. Each criterion includes "guiding questions" to parse out specific components that could be more readily assessed.ConclusionsThe criteria and guiding questions are a valuable tool for informing AHRQ's investment decisions regarding implementing PCOR findings. Although developed for AHRQ's needs, the criteria may help other funders and health care organizations determine the feasibility of implementing evidence-based practices.

Dataset Information

ASSESSMENT OF MAST IN EUROPEAN PATIENT-CENTERED TELEMEDICINE PILOTS.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

ASSESSMENT OF MAST IN EUROPEAN PATIENT-CENTERED TELEMEDICINE PILOTS.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets