Project description:BackgroundThe prioritization of sustainable patient-centered care in contemporary health care has resulted in an increased focus on patient empowerment, which in turn is considered to facilitate patient independence, self-management, and self-efficacy. However, a definitional consensus of empowerment remains elusive, impeding efforts to translate the conceptual ideals of empowerment into a measurable entity associated with changes in health care behavior or outcomes. The rapid integration of technology in health care serves to add another layer of complexity in the measurability and operationalization of empowerment and helps to create a specific context in which this conceptual entity should be further examined.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this scoping review was to explore the concept of patient empowerment within the electronic health (eHealth) context. A further focus on the association or measurement of this concept in conjunction with tethered patient portal use was also employed.MethodsIn this scoping review, a six-step framework was used to guide the search and paper selection process. The review was initiated with two broad research questions, which are as follows: (1) What is the relationship between empowerment and the use of eHealth technologies from a patient perspective? (2) How is patient empowerment (and/or engagement or activation) influenced by accessing personal health information through a tethered patient portal? Multiple databases were employed in a comprehensive search strategy, and papers were primarily evaluated and selected for inclusion by 2 review authors, and a third author was consulted to resolve any issues in reaching consensus.ResultsFrom an initial count of 1387 publications, this review returned nine systematic or literature review papers and 19 empirical studies that pertained to patient empowerment (and/or engagement and activation) in relation to the use of tethered patient portals providing access to electronic health records (EHRs). Of the 19 empirical publications, only four were found to have used specific patient empowerment measures with significant variety in their identified conceptual elements.ConclusionsThere is a persistent lack of conceptual clarity in patient empowerment research, and this has extended to study within the eHealth context. The interchangeable use or conflation of terms such as patient empowerment, engagement, and activation, has further complicated the advancement of distinct conceptual measures. To more strongly align changes in patient empowerment with supportive eHealth solutions, the challenges of achieving a consensus on how best to operationalize and measure patient empowerment must be met.

Project description:BackgroundAcross eHealth intervention studies involving children, adolescents, and their parents, researchers have measured user experience to assist with intervention development, refinement, and evaluation. To date, no widely accepted definitions or measures of user experience exist to support a standardized approach for evaluation and comparison within or across interventions.ObjectiveWe conduct a scoping review with subsequent Delphi consultation to identify how user experience is defined and measured in eHealth research studies, characterize the measurement tools used, and establish working definitions for domains of user experience that could be used in future eHealth evaluations.MethodsWe systematically searched electronic databases for published and gray literature available from January 1, 2005, to April 11, 2019. We included studies assessing an eHealth intervention that targeted any health condition and was designed for use by children, adolescents, and their parents. eHealth interventions needed to be web-, computer-, or mobile-based, mediated by the internet with some degree of interactivity. We required studies to report the measurement of user experience as first-person experiences, involving cognitive and behavioral factors reported by intervention users. We appraised the quality of user experience measures in included studies using published criteria: well-established, approaching well-established, promising, or not yet established. We conducted a descriptive analysis of how user experience was defined and measured in each study. Review findings subsequently informed the survey questions used in the Delphi consultations with eHealth researchers and adolescent users for how user experience should be defined and measured.ResultsOf the 8634 articles screened for eligibility, 129 articles and 1 erratum were included in the review. A total of 30 eHealth researchers and 27 adolescents participated in the Delphi consultations. On the basis of the literature and consultations, we proposed working definitions for 6 main user experience domains: acceptability, satisfaction, credibility, usability, user-reported adherence, and perceived impact. Although most studies incorporated a study-specific measure, we identified 10 well-established measures to quantify 5 of the 6 domains of user experience (all except for self-reported adherence). Our adolescent and researcher participants ranked perceived impact as one of the most important domains of user experience and usability as one of the least important domains. Rankings between adolescents and researchers diverged for other domains.ConclusionsFindings highlight the various ways in which user experience has been defined and measured across studies and what aspects are most valued by researchers and adolescent users. We propose incorporating the working definitions and available measures of user experience to support consistent evaluation and reporting of outcomes across studies. Future studies can refine the definitions and measurement of user experience, explore how user experience relates to other eHealth outcomes, and inform the design and use of human-centered eHealth interventions.

Project description:ObjectivesPatient experiences with health systems constitute a crucial pillar of quality care. Across the Arctic, patients' interactions with the healthcare system are influenced by challenges of access, historical inequities and social determinants. This scoping review sought to describe the range and nature of peer-reviewed literature on patient experience studies conducted within the circumpolar region.DesignIn a partnership between Danish/Greenlandic, Canadian and American research teams, a scoping review of published research exploring patient experiences in circumpolar regions was undertaken.Data sourcesSeven electronic databases were queried: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, 'Global Health 1910 to 2019 Week 11', CINAHL, PsycINFO and SveMed+.Eligibility criteriaArticles were eligible for inclusion if they (a) took place in the circumpolar region, (b) reported patients' perspective and (c) were focussed primarily on patient experiences with care, rather than satisfaction with treatment outcome.Data extraction and synthesisTitle and abstract screening, full-text review and data extraction was conducted by four researchers. Bibliometric information such as publication date and country of origin was extracted, as was information regarding study design and whether or not the article contained results relevant to the themes of Indigenous values, rural and remote context, telehealth and climate change. Two researchers then synthesised and characterised results relevant to these themes.ResultsOf the 2824 articles initially found through systematic searches in seven databases, 96 articles were included for data extraction. Findings from the review included unique features related to Indigenous values, rural and remote health, telehealth and climate change.ConclusionsThe review findings provide an overview of patient experiences measures used in circumpolar nations. These findings can be used to inform health system improvement based on patient needs in the circumpolar context, as well as in other regions that share common features. This work can be further contextualized through Indigenous methodologies such as sharing circles and community based participatory methods.

Project description:BackgroundeHealth is the use of information and communication technologies to enable and improve health and health care services. It is crucial that medical students receive adequate training in eHealth as they will work in clinical environments that are increasingly being enabled by technology. This trend is especially accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic as it complicates traditional face-to-face medical consultations and highlights the need for innovative approaches in health care.ObjectiveThis review aims to evaluate the extent and nature of the existing literature on medical student training in eHealth. In detail, it aims to examine what this education consists of, the barriers, enhancing factors, and propositions for improving the medical curriculum. This review focuses primarily on some key technologies such as mobile health (mHealth), the internet of things (IoT), telehealth, and artificial intelligence (AI).MethodsSearches were performed on 4 databases, and articles were selected based on the eligibility criteria. Studies had to be related to the training of medical students in eHealth. The eligibility criteria were studies published since 2014, from a peer-reviewed journal, and written in either English or French. A grid was used to extract and chart data.ResultsThe search resulted in 25 articles. The most studied aspect was mHealth. eHealth as a broad concept, the IoT, AI, and programming were least covered. A total of 52% (13/25) of all studies contained an intervention, mostly regarding mHealth, electronic health records, web-based medical resources, and programming. The findings included various barriers, enhancing factors, and propositions for improving the medical curriculum.ConclusionsTrends have emerged regarding the suboptimal present state of eHealth training and barriers, enhancing factors, and propositions for optimal training. We recommend that additional studies be conducted on the following themes: barriers, enhancing factors, propositions for optimal training, competencies that medical students should acquire, learning outcomes from eHealth training, and patient care outcomes from this training. Additional studies should be conducted on eHealth and each of its aspects, especially on the IoT, AI, programming, and eHealth as a broad concept. Training in eHealth is critical to medical practice in clinical environments that are increasingly being enabled by technology. The need for innovative approaches in health care during the COVID-19 pandemic further highlights the relevance of this training.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Dyadic psychosocial interventions have been found beneficial both for people coping with mental or physical health conditions as well as their family members and friends who provide them with support. Delivering these interventions via electronic health (eHealth) may help increase their scalability. OBJECTIVE:This scoping review aimed to provide the first comprehensive overview of dyadic eHealth interventions for individuals of all ages affected by mental or physical illness and their family members or friends who support them. The goal was to understand how dyadic eHealth interventions have been used and to highlight areas of research needed to advance dyadic eHealth intervention development and dissemination. METHODS:A comprehensive electronic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO was conducted for articles published in the English language through March 2019. Eligible records described a psychosocial eHealth intervention that intervened with both care recipients and their support person. RESULTS:A total of 7113 records were reviewed of which 101 met eligibility criteria. There were 52 unique dyadic eHealth interventions identified, which were tested across 73 different trials. Of the unique interventions, 33 were conducted among dyads of children and their supporting parent, 1 was conducted with an adolescent-young adult care recipient population, and the remaining 18 were conducted among adult dyads. Interventions targeting pediatric dyads most commonly addressed a mental health condition (n=10); interventions targeting adult dyads most commonly addressed cancer (n=9). More than three-fourths of interventions (n=40) required some human support from research staff or clinicians. Most studies (n=64) specified one or more primary outcomes for care recipients, whereas less than one-fourth (n=22) specified primary outcomes for support persons. Where specified, primary outcomes were most commonly self-reported psychosocial or health factors for both care recipients (n=43) and support persons (n=18). Results of the dyadic eHealth intervention tended to be positive for care recipients, but evidence of effects for support persons was limited because of few studies specifying primary outcomes for supporters. Trials of dyadic eHealth interventions were most commonly randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n=44), and RCTs most commonly compared the dyadic eHealth intervention to usual care alone (n=22). CONCLUSIONS:This first comprehensive review of dyadic eHealth interventions demonstrates that there is substantial, diverse, and growing literature supporting this interventional approach. However, several significant gaps were identified. Few studies were designed to evaluate the unique effects of dyadic interventions relative to individual interventions. There was also limited assessment and reporting of outcomes for support persons, and there were no interventions meeting our eligibility criteria specifically targeting the needs of older adult dyads. Findings highlight areas of research opportunities for developing dyadic eHealth interventions for novel populations and for increasing access to dyadic care.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of eHealth is more challenging for people with intellectual disabilities (IDs) than for the general population because the technologies often do not fit the complex needs and living circumstances of people with IDs. A translational gap exists between the developed technology and users' needs and capabilities. User involvement approaches have been developed to overcome this mismatch during the design, development, and implementation processes of the technology. The effectiveness and use of eHealth have received much scholarly attention, but little is known about user involvement approaches.ObjectiveIn this scoping review, we aimed to identify the inclusive approaches currently used for the design, development, and implementation of eHealth for people with IDs. We reviewed how and in what phases people with IDs and other stakeholders were included in these processes. We used 9 domains identified from the Centre for eHealth Research and Disease management road map and the Nonadoption, Abandonment, and challenges to the Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability framework to gain insight into these processes.MethodsWe identified both scientific and gray literature through systematic searches in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and (websites of) relevant intermediate (health care) organizations. We included studies published since 1995 that showed the design, development, or implementation processes of eHealth for people with IDs. Data were analyzed along 9 domains: participatory development, iterative process, value specification, value proposition, technological development and design, organization, external context, implementation, and evaluation.ResultsThe search strategy resulted in 10,639 studies, of which 17 (0.16%) met the inclusion criteria. Various approaches were used to guide user involvement (eg, human or user-centered design and participatory development), most of which applied an iterative process mainly during technological development. The involvement of stakeholders other than end users was described in less detail. The literature focused on the application of eHealth at an individual level and did not consider the organizational context. Inclusive approaches in the design and development phases were well described; however, the implementation phase remained underexposed.ConclusionsThe participatory development, iterative process, and technological development and design domains showed inclusive approaches applied at the start of and during the development, whereas only a few approaches involved end users and iterative processes at the end of the process and during implementation. The literature focused primarily on the individual use of the technology, and the external, organizational, and financial contextual preconditions received less attention. However, members of this target group rely on their (social) environment for care and support. More attention is needed for these underrepresented domains, and key stakeholders should be included further on in the process to reduce the translational gap that exists between the developed technologies and user needs, capabilities, and context.

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, public health care is under increasing pressure, an economic burden currently amplified by the COVID-19 outbreak. With the recognition that universal health coverage improves the health of a population and reduces health inequalities, universal health coverage has been acknowledged as a priority goal. To meet the global needs in a population with increased chronic illness and longer life expectancy, the health care system is in dire need of new, emerging technologies. eHealth solutions as a method of delivery may have an impact on quality of care and health care costs. As such, it is important to study methods previously used to avoid suboptimal implementation and promote general guidelines to further develop eHealth solutions.ObjectiveThis study aims to explore and thematically categorize a selected representation of early phase studies on eHealth technologies, focusing on papers that are under development or undergoing testing. Further, we want to assess enablers and barriers in terms of usability, scaling, and data management of eHealth implementation. The aim of this study to explore early development phase and feasibility studies was an intentional effort to provide applicable guidelines for evaluation at different stages of implementation.MethodsA structured search was performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane to identify and provide insight in current eHealth technology and methodology under development and gain insight in the future potential of eHealth technologies.ResultsIn total, 27 articles were included in this review. The clinical studies were categorized thematically by illness comparing 4 technology types deemed relevant: apps/web-based technology, sensor technology, virtual reality, and television. All eHealth assessment and implementation studies were categorized by their focus point: usability, scaling, or data management. Studies assessing the effect of eHealth were divided into feasibility studies, qualitative studies, and heuristic assessments. Studies focusing on usability (16/27) mainly addressed user involvement and learning curve in the adoption of eHealth, while the majority of scaling studies (6/27) focused on strategic and organizational aspects of upscaling eHealth solutions. Studies focusing on data management (5/27) addressed data processing and data sensitivity in adoption and diffusion of eHealth. Efficient processing of data in a secure manner, as well as user involvement and feedback, both throughout small studies and during upscaling, were the important enablers considered for successful implementation of eHealth.ConclusionseHealth interventions have considerable potential to improve lifestyle changes and adherence to treatment recommendations. To promote efficient implementation and scaling, user involvement to promote user-friendliness, secure and adaptable data management, and strategical considerations needs to be addressed early in the development process. eHealth should be assessed during its development into health services. The wide variation in interventions and methodology makes comparison of the results challenging and calls for standardization of methods.

Dataset Information

Patient Experience from an eHealth Perspective: A Scoping Review of Approaches and Recent Trends

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets