Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31778119›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2019

An Electronic Health Tool to Prepare for the First Orthopedic Consultation: Use and Usability Study.

Aniek A O M Claassen, Thea P M Vliet Vlieland, Vincent J J F Busch, Henk J Schers, Frank H J van den Hoogen, Cornelia H M van den Ende

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Aniek A O M ClaassenDepartment of Rheumatology, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6337-3734
Thea P M Vliet VlielandDepartment of Orthopaedics, Rehabilitation and Physical Therapy, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6322-3859
Vincent J J F BuschDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1861-5954
Henk J SchersRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9362-9451
Frank H J van den HoogenDepartment of Rheumatology, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1044-015X
Cornelia H M van den EndeDepartment of Rheumatology, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4352-2824

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of electronic health (eHealth) technology to prepare patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) for their first orthopedic consultation seems promising. Exploration of the use and usability of an educational eHealth tool may highlight potential modifications that could increase patient engagement and effectiveness.

objectiveThis study aimed to (1) identify the use and usability of a stand-alone educational eHealth tool for patients with suspected hip or knee OA, (2) explore whether the recorded questions in the eHealth tool were in line with an existing widely used question prompt list, and (3) investigate whether user characteristics are related to use and usability.

methodsWe used data from 144 participants in the intervention group of a randomized controlled trial, who were asked to use the educational eHealth tool to prepare for their upcoming first orthopedic consultation. We defined users and nonusers based on whether they had opened the tool at least once. Users were characterized as active or superficial depending on the extent of their use of the tool. The recorded questions for the consultation preparation were categorized into themes fitting 3 predefined questions or in a remaining category. Usability was measured using the System Usability Scale (SUS, 0-100). Data were collected including the patient demographic and clinical characteristics, knowledge of OA, and internet and smartphone usage in daily life. The characteristics associated with users and nonusers were analyzed using a multivariable logistic regression analysis.

resultsA total of 116/144 (80.6%) participants used the educational eHealth tool, of whom 87/116 (75.0%) were active users. Of the three components of the tool (information, my consultation, and medication), medication was the least used (34%). On the basis of recorded questions of the users, the fourth predefined question could be proposed. The mean (SD) SUS score was 64.8 (16.0). No difference was found between the SUS scores of superficial and active users (mean difference 0.04, 95% CI -7.69 to 7.77). Participants with a higher baseline knowledge of OA (odds ratio [OR] 1.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.4) and who used the internet less frequently in their daily life (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.9) were more likely to use the educational eHealth tool. We found no differences between the demographics and clinical characteristics of the superficial and active users.

conclusionsBased on the results of this study, it can be concluded that the use of an educational eHealth tool to prepare patients with hip and knee OA for the first orthopedic consultation is feasible. Our results suggest some improvements that should be made to the content of the tool to improve its usability. No clear practical implications were found to support the implementation of the educational eHealth tool in specific subgroups.

trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NTR6262; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6262.

Indexed as

consultationeHealthosteoarthritispatient educationsmartphoneuse

Identifiers

PMID31778119
PMCPMC6913511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.