Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35379247›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Meaningful use of a digital platform and structured telephone support to facilitate remote person-centred care - a mixed-method study on patient perspectives.

Emmelie Barenfeld, Joanne M Fuller, Sara Wallström, Andreas Fors, Lilas Ali, Inger Ekman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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.

Emmelie BarenfeldInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, Gothenburg, 40530, Sweden. emmelie.barenfeld@gu.se.
Joanne M FullerInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, Gothenburg, 40530, Sweden.
Sara WallströmInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, Gothenburg, 40530, Sweden.
Andreas ForsInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, Gothenburg, 40530, Sweden.
Lilas AliInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, Gothenburg, 40530, Sweden.
Inger EkmanInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, Gothenburg, 40530, Sweden.

Funding

The Hjalmar Svensson Foundation HJSV2020070The Swedish Heart & Lung Foundation DNr.20180183The Swedish Research Council DNr 2017-01230
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProcess evaluations are useful in clarifying results obtained from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Traditionally, the degree of intervention usage in process evaluations is monitored by measuring dose or evaluating implementation fidelity. From a person-centred perspective, such evaluations should be supplemented with patients' experiences of meaningful use, given that intervention use should be agreed upon between interested parties and tailored to each patient. This study aimed to elucidate patients' experiences of a remote person-centred care (PCC) intervention by deepening the understanding of, if, how and for whom the intervention contributed to meaningful use.

methodsPatients (n = 86) were recruited from the RCT PROTECT intervention group. A convergent mixed-method approach was implemented. Data were collected in parallel with the ongoing RCT via a survey, including ratings and written comments on meaningful or non-meaningful use. Also, interviews were performed with twelve purposefully selected participants. Descriptive statistics, logistic regression and content analysis were employed. Data sources were integrated in the results.

resultsMost participants rated the overall intervention as meaningful to use, with the telephone support rated as most meaningful. Interviews and written comments showed that patient ratings on meaningful use were explained by four categories: Not in need, Communication deficiency, Benefits in everyday life and A personal boost. Meaningful use of rating symptoms on the digital platform was predicted by living alone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.8 P = .044). A diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) predicted meaningful use of digital platform direct messaging (aOR = 3.5, P = .045). Moreover, having access to direct-dial telephone contact explained meaningful use among participants with low ratings of technical competence (aOR = 3.6, P = .014).

conclusionsThe combined digital platform and structured telephone support could be helpful in identifying preventive actions to maintain health for people diagnosed with COPD and chronic heart failure but tends to be more meaningful for those diagnosed with COPD. Overall, lower adoption of the digital platform was seen compared to telephone support. Shortcomings were noted in the digital platform's implementation that negatively influences experiences of meaningful use. When used, the intervention proved to be an easily applicable and valued tool to support preventive actions in a person-centred manner.

Indexed as

Meaningful UseTelephoneHumansPatient-Centered CareResearch DesignSelf CareChronic conditionChronic heart failureCOPDeHealthPatient-centeredPatient-centredPerson-centeredPerson-centredPreventionProcess-evaluationTele-HealthTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID35379247
PMCPMC8981820

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.