Dataset Information

Perceived Benefits, Barriers, and Facilitators of a Digital Patient-Reported Outcomes Tool for Routine Diabetes Care: Protocol for a National, Multicenter, Mixed Methods Implementation Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is growing evidence that digital patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires and PRO-based decision support tools may help improve the active engagement of people with diabetes in self-care, thereby improving the quality of care. However, many barriers still exist for the real-world effectiveness and implementation of such PRO tools in routine care. Furthermore, limited research has evaluated the acceptability, feasibility, and benefits of such tools across different health care settings.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, and perceived benefits of the Danish digital PRO diabetes tool in different health care settings in Denmark and to determine the factors affecting its implementation. Furthermore, the study evaluates the psychometric characteristics of the Danish PRO Diabetes Questionnaire and the validity of the scoring algorithms for dialogue support. The objective of this study is to guide the ongoing optimization of the PRO diabetes tool, its implementation, and the design of future randomized controlled effectiveness studies.

Methods

We designed a multicenter, mixed methods, single-arm acceptability-feasibility implementation study protocol to contribute to the real-world pilot test of a new digital PRO diabetes tool in routine diabetes care. The use of the tool involves two main steps. First, the people with diabetes will complete a digital PRO Diabetes Questionnaire in the days before a routine diabetes visit. Second, the health care professional (HCP) will use a digital PRO tool to review the PRO results together with the people with diabetes during the visit. The PRO diabetes tool is designed to encourage and support people to take an active role for the people with diabetes in their own care and to expedite the delivery of person-centered, collaborative, and coordinated care.

Results

A multicenter pilot study protocol and psychometrically designed digital data collection tools for evaluation were developed and deployed as part of a national evaluation of a new digital PRO diabetes intervention. A total of 598 people with diabetes and 34 HCPs completed the study protocol by April 1, 2021.

Conclusions

A large-scale, mixed methods, multicenter study for evaluating the use of the nationally developed PRO Diabetes Questionnaire in routine care across all health care sectors in Denmark by using the RE-AIM (Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance) model as a framework has been designed and is ongoing. This study is expected to provide new important and detailed information about the real-world acceptability, perceived relevance, and benefits of the PRO diabetes tool among a large heterogeneous population of people with diabetes in Denmark and HCPs in different care settings. The results will be used to further improve the PRO tool, design implementation facilitation support strategies, and design future controlled effectiveness studies.

International registered report identifier (irrid)

DERR1-10.2196/28391.

SUBMITTER: Skovlund SE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8449301 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCancer is a major global health problem. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) systems have been developed to support the treatment of patients with cancer. Although clear evidence of the benefits of the routine use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) exists, engaging physicians in using these systems has been challenging.ObjectiveThis study aims to identify and analyze what is currently known about health care professionals' (HCPs) perceived barriers and facilitators that exist and influence the use of ePRO systems for cancer care.MethodsWe carried out a systematic mapping study by conducting searches of 3 databases (Association for Computing Machinery, PubMed, and Scopus). Eligible papers were published between 2010 and 2021, and they described HCPs' perspectives on using ePROs. The data on the included papers were extracted, a thematic meta-synthesis was performed, and 7 themes were summarized into 3 categories.ResultsA total of 17 papers were included in the study. The HCPs' perceived barriers and facilitators of using ePROs can be summarized into 7 themes: clinical workflow, organization and infrastructure, value to patients, value to HCPs, digital health literacy, usability, and data visualization and perceived features. These themes can be further summarized into 3 categories: work environment, value to users, and suggested features. According to the study, ePROs should be interoperable with hospital electronic health records and adapted to the hospital workflow. HCPs should get appropriate support for their use. Additional features are needed for ePROs, and special attention should be paid to data visualization. Patients should have the option to use web-based ePROs at home and complete it at the time most valuable to the treatment. Patients' ePRO notes need attention during clinical visits, but ePRO use should not limit patient-clinician face-to-face communication.ConclusionsThe study revealed that several aspects need improvement in ePROs and their operating environments. By improving these aspects, HCPs' experience with ePROs will enhance, and thus, there will be more facilitating factors for HCPs to use ePROs than those available today. More national and international knowledge about using ePROs is still needed to cover the need for information to develop them and their operating environments to meet the needs of HCPs.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Translation of evidence-based interventions into hospital systems can provide immediate and substantial benefits to patient care and outcomes, but successful implementation is often not achieved. Existing literature describes a range of barriers and facilitators to the implementation process. This systematic review identifies and explores relationships between these barriers and facilitators to highlight key domains that need to be addressed by researchers and clinicians seeking to implement hospital-based, patient-focused interventions. METHODS:We searched MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL using search terms focused specifically on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of patient-focused interventions in hospital settings. To be eligible, papers needed to have collected formal data (qualitative or quantitative) that specifically assessed the implementation process, as experienced by the staff involved. RESULTS:Of 4239 papers initially retrieved, 43 papers met inclusion criteria. Staff-identified barriers and facilitators to implementation were grouped into three main domains: system, staff, and intervention. Bi-directional associations were evident between these domains, with the strongest links evident between staff and intervention. CONCLUSIONS:Researchers and health professionals engaged in designing patient-focused interventions need to consider barriers and facilitators across all three identified domains to increase the likelihood of implementation success. The interrelationships between domains are also crucial, as resources in one area can be leveraged to address barriers in others. These findings emphasize the importance of careful intervention design and pre-implementation planning in response to the specific system and staff context in order to increase likelihood of effective and sustainable implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This review was registered on the PROSPERO database: CRD42017057554 in February 2017.

Project description:ObjectiveA prerequisite for patient-centredness in healthcare organisations is offering patients access to adequate health information, which fits their needs. A personalised digital care pathway (PDCP) is a tool that facilitates the provision of tailored and timely information. Despite its potential, barriers influence the implementation of digital tools in healthcare organisations. Therefore, we investigated the perceived barriers and facilitators for implementation of the PDCP among stakeholders.DesignA qualitative study was conducted to acquire insight into perceptions of the stakeholders involved in the implementation of a digital care pathway in three diverse patient groups.SettingThis study is part of the PDCP research project in a large academic hospital in the Netherlands.ParticipantsPurposive sampling was used to recruit internal stakeholders (eg, healthcare professionals, employees of the supporting departments) and external stakeholders (eg, employees of the external PDCP supplier). In addition, existing semistructured interviews with patients involved in pilot implementation (n=24) were used to verify the findings.ResultsWe conducted 25 semistructured interviews using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Content analyses yielded four themes: (1) stakeholders' perceptions of the PDCP (eg, perceived usefulness); (2) characteristics of the individuals involved and the implementation process (eg, individuals express resistance to change); (3) organisational readiness (eg, lack of resources); and (4) collaboration within the organisation (eg, mutual communication, multidisciplinary codesign). The main barriers mentioned by patients were duration of first activation and necessity for up-to-date content. In addition, the most facilitating factor for patients was user-friendliness.ConclusionOur findings emphasise the importance of gaining insights into the various perspectives of stakeholder groups, including patients, regarding the implementation of the PDCP. The perceived barriers and facilitators can be used to improve the PDCP implementation plan and tailor the development and improvement of other digital patient communication tools.

Project description:BackgroundIn November 2016, the ICH published a requirement for sponsors to develop a systematic, prioritised, risk-based approach to monitoring clinical trials. This approach is more commonly known as risk-based monitoring (RBM). However, recent evidence suggests that a 'gold standard', validated approach to RBM does not exist and it is unclear how sponsors will introduce RBM into their organisations. A first step needed to inform the implementation of RBM is to explore academic trialists' readiness and ability to perform RBM. The aim of this paper is to identify the attitudes and perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of RBM in academic-led clinical trials in Ireland.MethodsThis is a mixed-methods, explanatory sequential design, with quantitative survey followed by semistructured interviews. Academic clinical researchers (N = 132) working in Ireland were surveyed to examine their use and perceptions of RBM. A purposive sample of survey participants (n = 22) were then interviewed to gain greater insight into the quantitative findings. The survey and interview data were merged to generate a list of perceived barriers and facilitators to RBM implementation, with suggestions for, and solutions to, these issues.ResultsSurvey response rate was 49% (132/273). Thirteen percent (n = 18) of responders were not familiar with the term risk-based monitoring and less than a quarter of respondents (21%, n = 28) had performed RBM in a clinical trial. Barriers to RBM implementation included lack of RBM knowledge/training, increased costs caused by greater IT demands, increased workload for trial staff and lack of evidence to support RBM as an effective monitoring approach. Facilitators included participants' legal obligation to perform RBM under the new ICH-GCP guidelines, availability of RBM guidance and perception of cost savings by performing RBM in future trials.ConclusionThe results of this study demonstrate a need for training and regulatory-endorsed guidelines to support the implementation of RBM in academic-led clinical trials. The study provides valuable insights to inform interventions and strategies by policy-makers and clinical trial regulators to improve RBM uptake.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although polypharmacy can cause adverse health outcomes, patients often know little about their medication. A regularly conducted medication review (MR) can help provide an overview of a patient's medication, and benefit patients by enhancing their knowledge of their drugs. As little is known about patient attitudes towards MRs in primary care, the objective of this study was to gain insight into patient-perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of an MR. METHODS:We conducted a qualitative study with a convenience sample of 31 patients (age???60 years, ?3 chronic diseases, taking ?5 drugs/d); in Hesse, Germany, in February 2016. We conducted two focus groups and, in order to ensure the participation of elderly patients with reduced mobility, 16 telephone interviews. Both relied on a semi-structured interview guide dealing with the following subjects: patients' experience of polypharmacy, general design of MRs, potential barriers and facilitators to implementation etc. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed by two researchers using thematic analysis. RESULTS:Patients' average age was 74 years (range 62-88 years). We identified barriers and facilitators for four main topics regarding the implementation of MRs in primary care: patient participation, GP-led MRs, pharmacist-led MRs, and the involvement of healthcare assistants in MRs. Barriers to patient participation concerned patient autonomy, while facilitators involved patient awareness of medication-related problems. Barriers to GP-led MRs concerned GP's lack of resources while facilitators related to the trusting relationship between patient and GP. Pharmacist-led MRs might be hindered by a lack of patients' confidence in pharmacists' expertise, but facilitated by pharmacies' digital records of the patients' medications. Regarding the involvement of healthcare assistants in MRs, a potential barrier was patients' uncertainty regarding the extent of their training. Patients could, however, imagine GPs delegating some aspects of MRs to them. CONCLUSIONS:Our study suggests that patients regard MRs as beneficial and expect indications for their medicines to be checked, and possible interactions to be identified. To foster the implementation of MRs in primary care, it is important to consider barriers and facilitators to the four identified topics.

Project description:Childhood obesity is a growing global health concern. Although mobile health apps have the potential to deliver behavioural interventions, their impact is commonly limited by a lack of sufficient engagement. The purpose of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators to engagement with a family-focused app and its perceived impact on motivation, self-efficacy, and behaviour. Parents with at least one child under 18 and healthcare professionals working with children were recruited; all participants were allocated to use the NoObesity app over a 6-month period. The mixed-methods design was based on the Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability and Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance frameworks. Qualitative and quantitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, and app use data (logins and in-app self-reported data). 35 parents were included in the final analysis; quantitative results were analysed descriptively and thematic analysis was conducted on the qualitative data. Key barriers to engagement were boredom, forgetting, and usability issues and key barriers to potential impact on behaviours were accessibility, lack of motivation, and family characteristics. Novelty, gamification features, reminders, goal setting, progress monitoring and feedback, and suggestions for healthy foods and activities were key facilitators to engagement with the app and behaviours. A key observation was that intervention strategies could help address many motivation and capability barriers, but there was a gap in strategies addressing opportunity barriers. Without incorporating strategies that successfully mitigate barriers in all three determinants of behaviour, an intervention is unlikely to be successful. We highlight key recommendations for developers to consider when designing the features and implementation of digital health interventions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05261555).