Dataset Information

Digital Health Interventions in Physiotherapy: Development of Client and Health Care Provider Survey Instruments.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The advancement of digital health has widened the scope of technology use across multiple frontiers of health care services, including personalized therapeutics, mobile health, eHealth record management, and telehealth consultations. The World Health Organization (WHO) responded to this in 2018 by publishing an inaugural broad classification framework of digital health interventions (DHIs) used to address contemporary health system needs.

Objective

This study aims to describe the systematic development of dual survey instruments (clinician and patient) to support data collection, administered in a physiotherapy setting, about perceptions toward DHIs. This is achieved by adapting the WHO framework classification for DHIs for application in real-world research.

Methods

Using a qualitative item review approach, WHO DHI descriptors were adapted and refined systematically to be used in a survey form. This approach was designed to align with the processes of delivering and receiving care in clinical practice, using musculoskeletal physiotherapy as a practical case scenario.

Results

Complementary survey instruments (for health care providers and clients) were developed by adapting descriptor items. These instruments will be used in a larger study exploring the willingness of physiotherapists and patients to use digital technologies in the management of musculoskeletal conditions.

Conclusions

This study builds on the WHO-standardized DHI framework. We developed dual novel survey instruments by adapting and refining the functions of DHIs. These may be deployed to explore the perceived usefulness and application of DHIs for different clinical care functions. Researchers may wish to use these survey instruments to examine digital health use systematically in a variety of clinical fields or technology scenarios in a way that is standardized and generalizable.

SUBMITTER: Merolli M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8367153 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe worldwide rise in common mental disorders (CMDs) is posing challenges in the provision of and access to care, particularly for immigrant, refugee and racialized groups from low-income backgrounds. eHealth tools, such as the Interactive Computer-Assisted Client Assessment Survey (iCCAS) may reduce some barriers to access. iCCAS is a tablet-based, touch-screen self-assessment completed by clients while waiting to see their family physician (FP) or nurse practitioner (NP). In an academic-community initiative, iCCAS was made available in English and Spanish at a Community Health Centre in Toronto through a mixed-method trial.MethodsThis paper reports the perspectives of clients in the iCCAS group (n = 74) collected through an exit survey, and the perspectives of 9 providers (four FP and five NP) gathered through qualitative interviews. Client acceptance of the tool was assessed for cognitive and technical dimensions of their experience. They rated twelve items for perceived Benefits and Barriers and four questions for the technical quality.ResultsMost clients reported that the iCCAS completion time was acceptable (94.5 %), the touch-screen was easy to use (97.3 %), and the instructions (93.2 %) and questions (94.6 %) were clear. Clients endorsed the tool's Benefits, but were unsure about Barriers to information privacy and provider interaction (mean 4.1, 2.6 and 2.8, respectively on a five-point scale). Qualitative analysis of the provider interviews identified five themes: challenges in Assessing Mental Health Services, such as case complexity, time, language and stigma; the Tool's Benefits, including non-intrusive prompting of clients to discuss mental health, and facilitation of providers' assessment and care plans; the Tool's Integration into everyday practice; Challenges for Use (e.g. time); and Promoting Integration Effectively, centered on the timing of screening, setting readiness, language diversity, and technological advances.ConclusionsParticipant clients and providers perceived iCCAS as an easy and useful tool for mental health assessments at the Community Health Centre and similar settings. The findings are anticipated to inform further work in this area.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov; NCT02023957 ; Registered retrospectively 12 Dec. 2013.

Project description:BackgroundIncreased digital health and social care services are generally considered to improve people's access to services. However, not everyone can equally access and use these resources. Health and social care professionals should assess clients' suitability for digital solutions, but to succeed, they need information about what to evaluate and how.ObjectiveThis scoping review aimed to identify evaluation tools that professionals can use when assessing clients' suitability for digital health and social care. We summarized the dimensions and the practical usefulness of the instruments.MethodsThe MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL, Web of Science, and ASSIA databases were searched in February 2023 following the Joanna Briggs Institute's Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Studies were included if they focused on health and social care clients and professionals, examined clients' suitability for using digital health or social care, and applied related assessment methods in the direct client work of professionals. Studies focusing primarily on instruments intended for research use without clear applicability to professionals' practical contexts were excluded. Details of the eligible studies were extracted, and qualitative content analysis according to the research objectives was performed.ResultsA total of 19 articles introducing 12 different assessment instruments intended for the health care context were included in the review. No instruments were found for evaluating the suitability for digital social care. The instruments contained 60 dimensions of the client's suitability for digital health, which reflected four perspectives: (1) skill-based suitability, (2) suitability based on general ability to maintain health, (3) suitability based on attitude and experience, and (4) suitability based on practical matters. The described practical usefulness of the instruments included professionals' possibility to (1) identify clients most in need of education and support, (2) direct and recommend the right clients for the right digital services, (3) ensure that clients can use digital health, (4) improve effectiveness and maximize the provision of digital health, (5) develop and redesign services, and (6) empower clients.ConclusionsBased on the diverse assessment instruments available and the dimensions they measure, there seems to be no comprehensive evaluation tool for assessing clients' prerequisites to use digital solutions. It is important to further develop comprehensive screening tools applicable to professionals' busy work (both in health and social care) with defined threshold values for suitability.

Project description:BackgroundVirtual reality (VR), a simulated experience that can be similar to or completely different from the real world, has become increasingly useful within the psychiatric and medical fields. This VR technology has been applied in medical school trainings, exposure therapy for individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and reminiscence therapy associated with mood disorders for older adults. Perceptions of VR through the lens of the health care provider require further exploration. VR has grown in popularity; however, this modality continues to be underused in most Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals.ObjectiveA web-based survey was used to explore health care provider perceptions of immersive VR availability and use for older adults and identify potential barriers for immersive VR use in older adults with cognitive impairment.MethodsAn 8-item web-based survey was developed to obtain health care provider feedback. This survey was disseminated throughout a single Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN). The VR survey was developed via the Survey Monkey platform and distributed through the secure VA email network. Providers were asked to voluntarily participate in the brief, anonymous survey and offer their perceptions of immersive VR use within their patient population. Survey data were reviewed and interpreted using descriptive statistics.ResultsA total of 49 respondents completed the survey over a 15-day period. Of them, 36 respondents (73%) had heard of a VR device, though the majority (n=44, 90%) had never used or prescribed a VR device. Respondents identified several potential barriers to immersive VR use in older adults with cognitive impairment (eg, hearing difficulties, perceptions of technology, cognitive concerns, access to resources, and visual impairment). Despite the barriers identified, providers (n=48, 98%) still reported that they would feel comfortable prescribing immersive VR as an intervention for their patient population.ConclusionsSurvey findings revealed that health care providers within this VISN for VAs have heard of VR, although they may not have actively engaged in its use. Most of the providers reported that they would prescribe the use of an immersive VR intervention for their older adult patients. This key point highlights the desire to implement VR strategies for patient use by their providers. If underlying barriers can be addressed and relatively resolved, this technological intervention has the potential to create substantial breakthroughs in clinical care.

Project description:BackgroundEpilepsy, multiple sclerosis (MS), and depression are chronic conditions where technology holds potential in clinical monitoring and self-management. Over 5 years, the Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse - Central Nervous System (RADAR-CNS) consortium has explored the application of remote measurement technology (RMT) to the management and self-management of patients in these clinical areas. The consortium is large and includes clinical and nonclinical researchers as well as a patient advisory board.ObjectiveThis formative development study aimed to understand how consortium members viewed the potential of RMT in epilepsy, MS, and depression.MethodsIn this qualitative survey study, we developed a methodological tool, universal points of care (UPOC), to gather views on the potential use, acceptance, and value of a novel RMT platform across 3 chronic conditions (MS, epilepsy, and depression). UPOC builds upon use case scenario methodology, using expert elicitation and analysis of care pathways to develop scenarios applicable across multiple conditions. After developing scenarios, we elicited views on the potential of RMT in these different scenarios through a survey administered to 28 subject matter experts, consisting of 16 health care practitioners; 5 health care services researchers; and 7 people with lived experience of MS, epilepsy, or depression. Survey results were analyzed thematically and using an existing framework of factors describing links between design and context.ResultsThe survey elicited potential beneficial applications of the RADAR-CNS RMT system as well as patient, clinical, and nonclinical requirements of RMT across the 3 conditions of interest. Potential applications included recognition of early warning signs of relapse from subclinical signals for MS, seizure precipitant signals for epilepsy, and behavior change in depression. RMT was also thought to have the potential to overcome the problem of underreporting, which is especially problematic in epilepsy, and to allow the capture of secondary symptoms that are not generally collected in MS, such as mood.ConclusionsRespondents suggested novel and unanticipated uses of RMT, including the use of RMT to detect emerging side effects of treatment, enable behavior change for sleep regulation and activity, and offer a way to include family and other carers in a care network, which could assist with goal setting. These suggestions, together with others from this and related work, will inform the development of the system for its eventual application in research and clinical practice. The UPOC methodology was effective in directing respondents to consider the value of health care technologies in condition-specific experiences of everyday life and working practice.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic conditions present major health problems, affecting an increasing number of individuals who experience a variety of symptoms that impact their health related quality of life. Digital tools can be of support in chronic conditions, potentially improving patient-provider communication, promoting shared decision making for treatment and care, and possibly even improving patient outcomes. This study aimed to develop a digital tool for patient-provider communication in chronic health care settings and describes the data collection and subsequent content and software development of the InvolveMe tool. InvolveMe will provide patients with the opportunity to report symptoms and preferences to their health care providers (HCP), and to use secure messaging to interact with the HCPs. METHOD:The study employed a combination of interviews with patients with chronic conditions and focus groups with HCPs, examining experiences with chronic conditions and the potential use of a digital tool for support. Participants were recruited from two outpatient clinics at a university hospital. Data collected from interviews and focus groups were analysed using thematic analysis. Content and software development was informed by the data collection and by tool development workshops. RESULTS:Analyses from interviews with patients (n?=?14) and focus groups with HCPs (n?=?11) generated three main themes: 1) Making symptoms and challenges visible, 2) Mastering a new life, and 3) Digital opportunities for follow-up. Each main theme generated separate subthemes. Theme 1 and 2 gave input for content development of the symptom and needs assessment part of the tool, while theme 3 provided ideas for the software development of the InvolveMe tool. Tool development workshops with patients (n?=?6) and HCPs (n?=?6) supplemented the development. CONCLUSIONS:A digital tool such as InvolveMe has the potential to support shared decision making for patients with chronic health conditions. Through integration with an existing patient portal such a tool can provide opportunities for meaningful interactions and communication between patients and HCP's, particularly with regards to symptoms, needs and preferences for care.

Project description:BackgroundDisease prevention is a central aspect of primary care practice and is comprised of primary (eg, vaccinations), secondary (eg, screenings), tertiary (eg, chronic condition monitoring), and quaternary (eg, prevention of overmedicalization) levels. Despite rapid digital transformation of primary care practices, digital health interventions (DHIs) in preventive care have yet to be systematically evaluated.ObjectiveThis review aimed to identify and describe the scope and use of current DHIs for preventive care in primary care settings.MethodsA scoping review to identify literature published from 2014 to 2020 was conducted across multiple databases using keywords and Medical Subject Headings terms covering primary care professionals, prevention and care management, and digital health. A subgroup analysis identified relevant studies conducted in US primary care settings, excluding DHIs that use the electronic health record (EHR) as a retrospective data capture tool. Technology descriptions, outcomes (eg, health care performance and implementation science), and study quality as per Oxford levels of evidence were abstracted.ResultsThe search yielded 5274 citations, of which 1060 full-text articles were identified. Following a subgroup analysis, 241 articles met the inclusion criteria. Studies primarily examined DHIs among health information technologies, including EHRs (166/241, 68.9%), clinical decision support (88/241, 36.5%), telehealth (88/241, 36.5%), and multiple technologies (154/241, 63.9%). DHIs were predominantly used for tertiary prevention (131/241, 54.4%). Of the core primary care functions, comprehensiveness was addressed most frequently (213/241, 88.4%). DHI users were providers (205/241, 85.1%), patients (111/241, 46.1%), or multiple types (89/241, 36.9%). Reported outcomes were primarily clinical (179/241, 70.1%), and statistically significant improvements were common (192/241, 79.7%). Results were summarized across the following 5 topics for the most novel/distinct DHIs: population-centered, patient-centered, care access expansion, panel-centered (dashboarding), and application-driven DHIs. The quality of the included studies was moderate to low.ConclusionsPreventive DHIs in primary care settings demonstrated meaningful improvements in both clinical and nonclinical outcomes, and across user types; however, adoption and implementation in the US were limited primarily to EHR platforms, and users were mainly clinicians receiving alerts regarding care management for their patients. Evaluations of negative results, effects on health disparities, and many other gaps remain to be explored.