ArticleJournal of participatory medicine2024
Implementing a Patient Portal for the Remote Follow-Up of Self-Isolating Patients With COVID-19 Infection Through Patient and Stakeholder Engagement (the Opal-COVID Study): Mixed Methods Pilot Study.
Article in Journal of participatory medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cost Analysis of a Patient Portal Used to Remotely Monitor COVID-19 Patients in Quebec.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic was an unprecedent challenge to public health systems, with 95% of cases in Quebec sent home for self-isolation. To ensure continuous care, we implemented an intervention supported by a patient portal (Opal) to remotely monitor at-home patients with COVID-19 via daily self-reports of symptoms, vital signs, and mental health that were reviewed by health care professionals.
objectiveWe describe the intervention's implementation, focusing on the (1) process; (2) outcomes, including feasibility, fidelity, acceptability, usability, and perceived response burden; and (3) barriers and facilitators encountered by stakeholders.
methodsThe implementation followed a co-design approach operationalized through patient and stakeholder engagement. The intervention included a 14-day follow-up for each patient. In the mixed methods study at the McGill University Health Centre in Montreal, Quebec, participants completed questionnaires on implementation outcomes on days 1, 7, and 14. All scores were examined against predefined success thresholds. Linear mixed models and generalized estimating equations were used to assess changes in scores over time and whether they differed by sex, age, and race. Semistructured interviews were conducted with expert patients, health care professionals, and coordinators for the qualitative analysis and submitted to thematic analysis guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.
resultsIn total, 51 participants were enrolled between December 2020 and March 2021; 49 (96%) were included in the quantitative analysis. Observed recruitment and retention rates (51/52, 98% and 49/51, 96%) met the 75% feasibility success threshold. Over 80% of the participants found it "quite easy/very easy" to complete the daily self-report, with a completion rate (fidelity) of >75% and a nonsignificant decreasing trend over time (from 100%, 49/49 to 82%, 40/49; P=.21). Mean acceptability and usability scores at all time points exceeded the threshold of 4 out of 5. Acceptability scores increased significantly between at least 2 time points (days 1, 7, and 14: mean 4.06, SD 0.57; mean 4.26, SD 0.59; and mean 4.25, SD 0.57; P=.04). Participants aged >50 years reported significantly lower mean ease of use (usability) scores than younger participants (days 1, 7, and 14: mean 4.29, SD 0.91 vs mean 4.67, SD 0.45; mean 4.13, SD 0.89 vs mean 4.77, SD 0.35; and mean 4.24, SD 0.71 vs mean 4.72, SD 0.71; P=.004). In total, 28 stakeholders were interviewed between June and September 2021. Facilitators included a structured implementation process, a focus on stakeholders' recommendations, the adjustability of the intervention, and the team's emphasis on safety. However, Opal's thorough privacy protection measures and limited acute follow-up capacities were identified as barriers, along with implementation delays due to data security-related institutional barriers.
conclusionsThe intervention attained targets across all studied implementation outcomes. Qualitative findings highlighted the importance of stakeholder engagement. Telehealth tools have potential for the remote follow-up of acute health conditions. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/35760.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.