Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41052768›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2025

Patients' Perceptions of Using a Digital Previsit Tool in Outpatient Settings (Part 2): Qualitative Study.

Petra Pohl, Emma K Kjörk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Petra Pohl *Department of Health and Rehabilitation, Sahlgrenska Academy, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-3447-6547
Emma K Kjörk *Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-1005-7444

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with long-term conditions, such as stroke, require regular follow-up visits to health care professionals to identify changes in symptoms. The digital previsit tool Strokehälsa (Strokehealth) has been designed to encourage individuals with stroke to reflect on stroke-related health concerns before a follow-up visit, thereby potentially enhancing their engagement during the visit. Strokehealth has previously been evaluated using a patient satisfaction survey (part 1), but there remains a need to further explore patients' perceptions and needs to optimize its functionality before broader implementation.

objectiveThe overall aim was to attain deeper insights into patients' views and experiences of using the digital previsit tool Strokehealth before a follow-up visit. A secondary aim was to identify potential improvements to the tool based on these insights.

methodsFor this qualitative study, patients who had used Strokehealth version 1.0 before a follow-up visit were recruited through the previous survey between November 2020 and June 2021. Individual semistructured interviews were conducted, and data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Subsequent workshops were held with people with firsthand experiences of stroke, other stakeholders (including health professionals and researchers), and a web consultant to finalize decisions regarding adjustments to be implemented in Strokehealth version 2.0.

resultsInterviews were conducted with 33 participants (23 men and 10 women), with a median age of 67 (IQR 55-76) years. Analysis of the data regarding participants' experiences of using Strokehealth revealed three overarching themes: (1) a supporting tool for preparing dialogue and identifying needs, (2) how Strokehealth is introduced and communicated affects perceived usability, and (3) the wording and structure of Strokehealth influences the response process. The findings captured various aspects of receiving and using the digital previsit tool, highlighting its simplicity and purpose. Overall, Strokehealth was well received and contributed to a sense of being well cared for. Participants generally not only found Strokehealth easy to use but also shared suggestions on how to better address stroke-related issues, such as mental fatigue or pain. Examples of changes that have been implemented in Strokehealth version 2.0, based on participant feedback, include improved explanatory texts and expanded opportunities for free text.

conclusionsThe findings indicate that the freely available digital previsit tool Strokehealth was generally well received by patients with stroke who were scheduled for follow-up visits in outpatient settings.

trial registrationResearchweb 275135; https://www.researchweb.org/is/vgr/project/275135.

Indexed as

OutpatientsPatient SatisfactionStrokeAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearcheHealthfollow-uphealth literacypatient engagementperson-centered carepost-stroke checkliststroke rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID41052768
PMCPMC12538183

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.