Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35921145›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

Evaluation of a Digital Self-management Platform for Patients With Chronic Illness in Primary Care: Qualitative Study of Stakeholders' Perspectives.

Steven van de Vijver, Deirdre Hummel, Annericht Hester van Dijk, Jan Cox, Oscar van Dijk, Nicoline Van den Broek, Esther Metting

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Digital Health Use Across Socioeconomic Groups Among Patients With Chronic Diseases: A Cross-Sectional Study.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Article
  14. 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

7 authors.

Steven van de VijverAmsterdam Health & Technology Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9174-7737
Deirdre HummelFaculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5063-0727
Annericht Hester van DijkFaculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6778-2885
Jan CoxMedicine Men, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0699-6270
Oscar van DijkMedicine Men, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1243-0190
Nicoline Van den BroekDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0801-8331
Esther MettingFaculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1677-3529

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPopulation aging and multimorbidity has led to increasing chronic care needs associated with new challenges in managing growing costs, rising health care professional workloads, and the adoption of rigorous guidelines. These issues could all benefit from greater digitalization and a more patient-centered approach to chronic care, a situation brought to the fore by the COVID-19 pandemic. Little is known about real-life use in primary care.

objectiveThis study aimed to explore the views, thoughts, usability, and experiences concerning a recently introduced digital self-care platform for chronic conditions in 3 Dutch primary care practices.

methodsWe conducted an explorative study combining questionnaires and interviews among patients and general practitioners from 3 general practices that used the digital platform. Questionnaires were sent to patients in each practice to seek the views and experiences of both patient nonusers (n=20) and patient users (n=58) of the platform, together with standardized questionnaires about illness perception and quality of life. In addition, patients (n=15) and general practitioners (n=4) who used the platform took part in semistructured interviews. We transcribed interviews verbatim and performed qualitative content analysis using a deductive approach. The results of the questionnaires were analyzed with descriptive analysis.

resultsAmong patients who had not actively used the platform but had received an explanation, only 35% (7/20) would recommend its use due to concerns over communication and handling. However, this percentage increased to 76.3% (45/59) among the people who actively used the platform. Interviews with patients and general practitioners who used the platform uncovered several key benefits, including reduced time requirements, reduced workload, improved care quality, and improved accessibility due to the greater patient-centeredness and use of different communication tools. In addition, the self-management tool led to greater patient autonomy and empowerment. Although users considered the platform feasible, usable, and easy to use, some technical issues remained and some patients expressed concerns about the reduction in human contact and feedback.

conclusionsThe overall experience and usability of the platform was good. Support for the online self-management platform for chronic care increased when patients actively used the tool and could experience or identify important advantages. However, patients still noted several areas for improvement that need to be tackled in future iterations. To ensure benefit in the wider population, we must also evaluate this platform in cohorts with lower digital and health literacy.

Indexed as

chronic carechronic care managementchronic diseasecommunicationdigital healthempowermenthealthcarehealthcare professionalillnessonlinepatientpatient-centered careplatformprimary careself-managementtelemonitoringtooluser

Identifiers

PMID35921145
PMCPMC9386583

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.