Dataset Information

How can clinicians, specialty societies and others evaluate and improve the quality of apps for patient use?

ABSTRACT:

Background

Health-related apps have great potential to enhance health and prevent disease globally, but their quality currently varies too much for clinicians to feel confident about recommending them to patients. The major quality concerns are dubious app content, loss of privacy associated with widespread sharing of the patient data they capture, inaccurate advice or risk estimates and the paucity of impact studies. This may explain why current evidence about app use by people with health-related conditions is scanty and inconsistent.

Main text

There are many concerns about health-related apps designed for use by patients, such as poor regulation and implicit trust in technology. However, there are several actions that various stakeholders, including users, developers, health professionals and app distributors, can take to tackle these concerns and thus improve app quality. This article focuses on the use of checklists that can be applied to apps, novel evaluation methods and suggestions for how clinical specialty organisations can develop a low-cost curated app repository with explicit risk and quality criteria.

Conclusions

Clinicians and professional societies must act now to ensure they are using good quality apps, support patients in choosing between available apps and improve the quality of apps under development. Funders must also invest in research to answer important questions about apps, such as how clinicians and patients decide which apps to use and which app factors are associated with effectiveness.

SUBMITTER: Wyatt JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6276222 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How can clinicians, specialty societies and others evaluate and improve the quality of apps for patient use?

Wyatt Jeremy C JC

BMC medicine 20181203 1

<h4>Background</h4>Health-related apps have great potential to enhance health and prevent disease globally, but their quality currently varies too much for clinicians to feel confident about recommending them to patients. The major quality concerns are dubious app content, loss of privacy associated with widespread sharing of the patient data they capture, inaccurate advice or risk estimates and the paucity of impact studies. This may explain why current evidence about app use by people with hea ...[more]

PMID: 30501638

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSubspecialty ambulatory care visits have doubled in the past 10 years and nearly half of all visits are for follow-up care. Could some of this care be provided by primary care providers (PCPs)?ObjectiveTo determine how often PCPs and specialists agree that a mutual patient's condition could be managed exclusively by the PCP, and to understand PCPs' perspectives on factors that influence decisions about 'repatriation,' or the transfer of patient management to primary care.DesignA mixed method approach including paired surveys of PCPs and specialists about the necessity for ongoing specialty care of mutual patients, and interviews with PCPs about care coordination practices and reasons for differing opinions with specialists.ParticipantsOne hundred and eighty-nine PCPs and 59 physicians representing five medicine subspecialties completed paired surveys for 343 patients. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 PCPs.MeasurementsFor each patient, PCPs and specialists were asked, "Could this diagnosis be managed exclusively by the PCP?"ResultsSpecialists and PCPs agreed that transfer to primary care was appropriate for 16% of patients, whereas 36% had specialists and PCPs who agreed that ongoing specialty care was appropriate. Specialists were half as likely as PCPs to identify patients as appropriate for transfer to primary care. PCPs identified several factors that influence the likelihood that patients will be transferred to primary care, including perceived patient preferences, limited access to physician appointments, excessive workload, inter-clinician communication norms, and differences in clinical judgment. We group these factors into two domains: 'push-back' and 'pull-back' to primary care.ConclusionsAt a large academic medical center, approximately one in six patients receiving ongoing specialty care could potentially be managed exclusively by a PCP. PCPs identified several non-clinical factors to explain continuation of specialty care when patient transfer to PCP is clinically appropriate.

Project description:BackgroundThe burden of waiting to access specialist expertise may contribute to poorer health outcomes and causes distress for patients and providers. One solution to improve access to specialist care is to use innovative tools such as remote asynchronous electronic consultation (eConsult). Modeled after the Champlain BASE™ (Building Access to Specialist Advice) eConsult service, BASE™ eConsult Manitoba was launched in 2017 to help address long waits for patients to access specialist advice.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate patients' experiences after obtaining a BASE™ eConsult Manitoba service in their primary care setting.MethodsPatients whose Primary Care Providers (PCPs) used BASE™ eConsult as part of their care were asked to participate and complete a telephone-based or online 29-question survey between January 2021 and October 2021. The survey questions were created in consultation with patient partners and based on questions asked in studies done in other jurisdictions.ResultsOf the 36 patients who chose to participate, 29 completed the entire survey (80%). Two-thirds (n = 22) agreed that eConsult has been helpful in their situation, and over 80% (n = 24) of participants agreed that eConsult was an acceptable way to access specialist care. During the visit when their PCP sent the eConsult, 7 patients were expecting to be referred to a specialist for a face-to-face consultation. Over half of all respondents (n = 15) reported that before the eConsult occurred, their PCP asked them what questions they wanted to be answered by the specialist. Almost all of these respondents' questions were fully answered by the eConsult. All of the respondents were satisfied with the experience of receiving an eConsult.ConclusionUsing eConsult is an acceptable way to improve access to specialist advice from patients' perspectives. Consideration should be given to expanding the use of eConsult services to improve access to specialist expertise for PCPs and their patients.

Project description:ImportanceClinician attitudes toward telehealth may impact utilization rates, and findings may differ based on specialty.ObjectiveTo determine whether clinician beliefs regarding telehealth quality and ease of use were associated with the proportion of care delivered via video, phone, and in-person across specialties.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study used a voluntary, anonymous survey conducted from August to September 2021 in the Department of Veterans Affairs New England Healthcare System (VANEHS). Mental health (MH), primary care (PC), and specialty care (SC) clinicians were invited to participate. Data were analyzed from October 2021 to January 2022.ExposuresParticipation in a 32-item survey.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were clinicians' views on relative quality of video, phone, and in-person care; factors contributing to clinicians' modality choice; telehealth challenges; and clinician modality preferences and utilization when treating new and established patients.ResultsThere were 866 survey respondents (estimated 64% response rate); 52 respondents reported no video or phone telehealth use in the 3 months prior to survey completion and were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 814 respondents. Respondents were divided among MH (403 respondents [49.5%]), PC (153 respondents [18.8%]), and SC (258 respondents [31.7%]). Compared with PC and SC clinicians, MH clinicians rated the quality of video care the highest (eg, compared with in-person care with masks when treating new patients: χ2 = 147.8; P < .001) and were more likely to prefer video over phone when treating both new (χ2 = 26.6; P < .001) and established (χ2 = 100.4; P < .001) patients remotely. PC and SC clinicians were more likely to rate phone care as being at least equivalent in quality to video for both new (χ2 = 26.3; P < .001) and established (χ2 = 33.5; P < .001) patients. PC and SC clinicians were also more likely to endorse challenges of video care, including patient barriers and the inability to conduct a physical examination (χ2 = 292.0; P < .001). Most PC and SC clinicians either had no preference (46 PC respondents [36.2%]; 59 SC respondents [28.4%]) or preferred phone (36 PC respondents [28.3%]; 67 SC respondents [32.2%]) for remote care of established patients. Findings aligned with utilization rates within VANEHS, with MH clinicians conducting significantly more of their encounters via video (36 734 encounters [40.3%]) than PC (3201 encounters [3.9%]) and SC (1157 encounters [4.9%]) clinicians.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that clinician attitudes regarding telehealth quality and ease of use were associated with utilization rates. Moving forward, clinician use of telehealth may be impacted by additional data regarding the relative effectiveness of modalities as well as improvements in video telehealth workflows.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Improving access to specialty care has been identified as a critical issue in the delivery of health services, especially given an increasing burden of chronic disease. Identifying and addressing problems that impact access to specialty care for patients referred to speciality care for non-emergent procedures and how these deficiencies can be managed via health system delivery interventions is important to improve care for patients with chronic conditions. However, the primary-specialty care interface is complex and may be impacted by a variety of potential health services delivery deficiencies; with an equal range of interventions developed to correct them. Consequently, the literature is also diverse and difficult to navigate. We present a narrative review to identify existing literature, and provide a conceptual map that categorizes problems at the primary-specialty care interface with linkages to corresponding interventions aimed at ensuring that patient transitions across the primary-specialty care interface are necessary, appropriate, timely and well communicated. METHODS:We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from January 1, 2005 until Dec 31, 2014, grey literature and reference lists to identify articles that report on interventions implemented to improve the primary-specialty care interface. Selected articles were categorized to describe: 1) the intervention context, including the deficiency addressed, and the objective of the intervention 2) intervention activities, and 3) intervention outcomes. RESULTS:We identified 106 articles, producing four categories of health services delivery deficiencies based in: 1) clinical decision making; 2) information management; 3) the system level management of patient flows between primary and secondary care; and 4) quality-of-care monitoring. Interventions were divided into seven categories and fourteen sub-categories based on the deficiencies addressed and the intervention strategies used. Potential synergies and trade-offs among interventions are discussed. Little evidence exists regarding the synergistic and antagonistic interactions of alternative intervention strategies. CONCLUSION:The categorization acts as an aid in identifying why the primary-specialty care interface may be failing and which interventions may produce improvements. Overlap and interconnectedness between interventions creates potential synergies and conflicts among co-implemented interventions.

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about how delivery of primary care in the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) influences outpatient specialty care use.ObjectiveTo describe changes in outpatient specialty use among patients with treated hypertension during and after PCMH practice transformation.DesignOne-group, 48-month interrupted time series across baseline, PCMH implementation and post-implementation periods.PatientsAdults aged 18-85 years with treated hypertension.InterventionSystem-wide PCMH redesign implemented across 26 clinics in an integrated health care delivery system, beginning in January 2009.Main measuresResource Utilization Band variables from the Adjusted Clinical Groups case mix software characterized overall morbidity burden (low, medium, high). Negative binomial regression models described adjusted annual differences in total specialty care visits. Poisson regression models described adjusted annual differences in any use (yes/no) of selected medical and surgical specialties.Key resultsCompared to baseline, the study population averaged 7% fewer adjusted specialty visits during implementation (P?<?0.001) and 4% fewer adjusted specialty visits in the first post-implementation year (P?=?0.02). Patients were 12% less likely to have any cardiology visits during implementation and 13% less likely during the first post-implementation year (P?<?0.001). In interaction analysis, patients with low morbidity had at least 27% fewer specialty visits during each of 3 years following baseline (P?<?0.001); medium morbidity patients had 9% fewer specialty visits during implementation (P?<?0.001) and 5% fewer specialty visits during the first post-implementation year (P?=?0.007); high morbidity patients had 3% (P?=?0.05) and 5% (P?=?0.009) higher specialty use during the first and second post-implementation years, respectively.ConclusionsResults suggest that more comprehensive primary care in this PCMH redesign enabled primary care teams to deliver more hypertension care, and that many needs of low morbidity patients were within the scope of primary care practice. New approaches to care coordination between primary care teams and specialists should prioritize high morbidity, clinically complex patients.

Dataset Information

How can clinicians, specialty societies and others evaluate and improve the quality of apps for patient use?

Background

Main text

Conclusions

Publications

How can clinicians, specialty societies and others evaluate and improve the quality of apps for patient use?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets