Martine Huygens

Expectations and needs of patients with a chronic disease toward self-management and eHealth for self-management purposes

BackgroundSelf-management is considered as an essential component of chronic care by primary care professionals. eHealth is expected to play an important role in supporting patients in their self-management. For effective implementation of eHealth it is important to investigate patients’ expectations and needs regarding self-management and eHealth. The objectives of this study are to investigate expectations and needs of people with a chronic condition regarding self-management and eHealth for self-management purposes, their willingness to use eHealth, and possible differences between patient groups regarding these topics.MethodsFive focus groups with people with diabetes (n = 14), COPD (n = 9), and a cardiovascular condition (n = 7) were conducted in this qualitative research. Separate focus groups were organized based on patients’ chronic condition. The following themes were discussed: 1) the impact of the chronic disease on patients’ daily life; 2) their opinions and needs regarding self-management; and 3) their expectations and needs regarding, and willingness to use, eHealth for self-management purposes. A conventional content analysis approach was used for coding.ResultsPatient groups seem to differ in expectations and needs regarding self-management and eHealth for self-management purposes. People with diabetes reported most needs and benefits regarding self-management and were most willing to use eHealth, followed by the COPD group. People with a cardiovascular condition mentioned having fewer needs for self-management support, because their disease had little impact on their life. In all patient groups it was reported that the patient, not the care professional, should choose whether or not to use eHealth. Moreover, participants reported that eHealth should not replace, but complement personal care. Many participants reported expecting feelings of anxiety by doing measurement themselves and uncertainty about follow-up of deviant data of measurements. In addition, many participants worried about the implementation of eHealth being a consequence of budget cuts in care.ConclusionThis study suggests that aspects of eHealth, and the way in which it should be implemented, should be tailored to the patient. Patients’ expected benefits of using eHealth to support self-management and their perceived controllability over their disease seem to play an important role in patients’ willingness to use eHealth for self-management purposes.

Internet Services for Communicating With the General Practice: Barely Noticed and Used by Patients

Background The Netherlands is one of the frontrunners of eHealth in Europe. Many general practices offer Internet services, which can be used by patients to communicate with their general practice. In promoting and implementing such services, it is important to gain insight into patients’ actual use and intention toward using. Objective The objective of the study is to investigate the actual use and intention toward using Internet services to communicate with the general practice by the general practice population. The secondary objective is to study the factors and characteristics that influence their intention to use such services. Methods There were 1500 members of the Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel, age over 18 years, that were invited to participate in this cross-sectional study. People who had contacted their general practitioner at least once in the past year were included. Participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire about the following services: Internet appointment planning, asking questions on the Internet, email reminders about appointments, Internet prescription refill requests, Internet access to medical data, and Internet video consultation. Participants indicated whether they had used these services in the past year, they would like to use them, and whether they thought their general practice had these services. For the first two services, participants rated items based on the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology complemented with additional constructs. These items were divided into six subscales: effort expectancy, performance expectancy, trust, attitude, facilitating conditions, and social influence. Results There were 546 participants that were included in the analyses out of 593 who met the inclusion criteria. The participants had a mean age of 53 years (SD 15.4), 43.6% (n=238) were male, and 66.8% (n=365) had at least one chronic illness. Actual use of the services varied between 0% (n=0, video consultation) and 10.4% (n=57, requesting prescription refill by Internet). The proportion of participants with a positive intention to use the service varied between 14.7% (n=80, video consultation) and 48.7% (n=266, Internet access to medical data). For each service, approximately half indicated that they did not know whether the service was available. Univariate logistic regression analyses revealed that all the constructs as well as age, level of education, and Internet usage had a significant association with intention toward using Internet appointment planning and asking questions by Internet. Conclusions Internet communication services to contact the general practice are not yet frequently used by this population. Although a substantial number of persons have a positive intention toward using such services, not all people who receive primary care seem willing to use them. The lack of awareness of the availability and functionality of such services might play an important role.

Understanding the use of email consultation in primary care using a retrospective observational study with data of Dutch electronic health records

Objectives It is unclear why the use of email consultation is not more widespread in Dutch general practice, particularly because, since 2006, its costs can be reimbursed. To encourage further implementation, it is needed to understand the current use of email consultations. This study aims to understand the use of email consultation by different patient groups, compared with other general practice (GP) consultations. Setting For this retrospective observational study, we used Dutch routine electronic health record data obtained from NIVEL Primary Care Database for the years 2010 and 2014. Participants 200 general practices were included in 2010 (734 122 registered patients) and 434 in 2014 (1 630 386 registered patients). Primary outcome measures The number and percentage of email consultations and patient characteristics (age, gender, neighbourhood socioeconomic status and diagnoses) of email consultation users were investigated and compared with those who had a telephone or face-to-face consultation. General practice characteristics were also taken into account. Results 32.0% of the Dutch general practices had at least one email consultation in 2010, rising to 52.8% in 2014. In 2014, only 0.7% of the GP consultations were by email (the others comprised home visits, telephone and face-to-face consultations). Its use highly varied among general practices. Most email consultations were done for psychological (14.7%); endocrine, metabolic and nutritional (10.9%); and circulatory (10.7%) problems. These diagnosis categories appeared less frequently in telephone and face-to-face consultations. Patients who had an email consultation were older than patients who had a telephone or face-to-face consultation. In contrast, patients with diabetes who had an email consultation were younger. Conclusion Even though email consultation was done in half the general practices in the Netherlands in 2014, the actual use of it is extremely low. Patients who had an email consultation differ from those who had a telephone or face-to-face consultation. In addition, the use of email consultation by patients is dependent on its provision by GPs.

Self-monitoring of health data by patients with a chronic disease: does disease controllability matter?

BackgroundThere is a growing emphasis on self-monitoring applications that allow patients to measure their own physical health parameters. A prerequisite for achieving positive effects is patients’ willingness to self-monitor. The controllability of disease types, patients’ perceived self-efficacy and health problems could play an essential role in this. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between patients’ willingness to self-monitor and a range of disease and patient specific variables including controllability of disease type, patients’ perceived self-efficacy and health problems.MethodsData regarding 627 participants with 17 chronic somatic disease types from a Dutch panel of people with chronic diseases have been used for this cross-sectional study. Perceived self-efficacy was assessed using the general self-efficacy scale, perceived health problems using the Physical Health Composite Score (PCS). Participants indicated their willingness to self-monitor. An expert panel assessed for 17 chronic disease types the extent to which patients can independently keep their disease in control. Logistic regression analyses were conducted.ResultsPatients’ willingness to self-monitor differs greatly among disease types: patients with diabetes (71.0%), asthma (59.6%) and hypertension (59.1%) were most willing to self-monitor. In contrast, patients with rheumatism (40.0%), migraine (41.2%) and other neurological disorders (42.9%) were less willing to self-monitor. It seems that there might be a relationship between disease controllability scores and patients’ willingness to self-monitor. No evidence is found of a relationship between general self-efficacy and PCS scores, and patients’ willingness to self-monitor.ConclusionsThis study provides the first evidence that patients’ willingness to self-monitor might be associated with disease controllability. Further research should investigate this association more deeply and should focus on how disease controllability influences willingness to self-monitor. In addition, since willingness to self-monitor differed greatly among patient groups, it should be taken into account that not all patient groups are willing to self-monitor.

Lessons Learned From a Living Lab on the Broad Adoption of eHealth in Primary Health Care

Background Electronic health (eHealth) solutions are considered to relieve current and future pressure on the sustainability of primary health care systems. However, evidence of the effectiveness of eHealth in daily practice is missing. Furthermore, eHealth solutions are often not implemented structurally after a pilot phase, even if successful during this phase. Although many studies on barriers and facilitators were published in recent years, eHealth implementation still progresses only slowly. To further unravel the slow implementation process in primary health care and accelerate the implementation of eHealth, a 3-year Living Lab project was set up. In the Living Lab, called eLabEL, patients, health care professionals, small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and research institutes collaborated to select and integrate fully mature eHealth technologies for implementation in primary health care. Seven primary health care centers, 10 SMEs, and 4 research institutes participated. Objective This viewpoint paper aims to show the process of adoption of eHealth in primary care from the perspective of different stakeholders in a qualitative way. We provide a real-world view on how such a process occurs, including successes and failures related to the different perspectives. Methods Reflective and process-based notes from all meetings of the project partners, interview data, and data of focus groups were analyzed systematically using four theoretical models to study the adoption of eHealth in primary care. Results The results showed that large-scale implementation of eHealth depends on the efforts of and interaction and collaboration among 4 groups of stakeholders: patients, health care professionals, SMEs, and those responsible for health care policy (health care insurers and policy makers). These stakeholders are all acting within their own contexts and with their own values and expectations. We experienced that patients reported expected benefits regarding the use of eHealth for self-management purposes, and health care professionals stressed the potential benefits of eHealth and were interested in using eHealth to distinguish themselves from other care organizations. In addition, eHealth entrepreneurs valued the collaboration among SMEs as they were not big enough to enter the health care market on their own and valued the collaboration with research institutes. Furthermore, health care insurers and policy makers shared the ambition and need for the development and implementation of an integrated eHealth infrastructure. Conclusions For optimal and sustainable use of eHealth, patients should be actively involved, primary health care professionals need to be reinforced in their management, entrepreneurs should work closely with health care professionals and patients, and the government needs to focus on new health care models stimulating innovations. Only when all these parties act together, starting in local communities with a small range of eHealth tools, the potential of eHealth will be enforced.

eLabEL: technology-supported living labs in primary care

Telecare technologies and eHealth applications can support patients and care professionals. However, these technologies are currently not being implemented in primary care. The eLabEL project aims to contribute to a solution for this problem by establishing Living Labs in which patients, healthcare professionals, entrepreneurs and researchers collaborate during the selection, integration, implementation and evaluation of such technologies in primary care. So far, seven primary care centers across the Netherlands have been included. Needs and requirements of healthcare professionals and patients regarding telecare technologies and eHealth applications were studied using semi-structured interviews and focus group interviews respectively. Healthcare professionals and patients were positive towards the use of technologies that can improve accessibility of care for the entire patient population and also expressed a need for technologies that can support self-management in patients with chronic conditions. Requirements voiced by care professionals were the need for clear organization of the user-interface, availability of workflow directives for eHealth usage, minimal steps to perform a task, and integration with their current information system. Patients indicated that care technology should be easy to use and easy to learn, should provide real-time feedback based on self-measured data, and should improve communication between patients and healthcare professionals. Entrepreneurs from the eLabEL consortium will integrate their eHealth and telecare services to meet the requirements of the end-users. The large scale implementation of these technologies will be monitored and the impact on experiences of patients, professionals and organization of care will be studied during a two-year follow-up study. Stakeholders of the eLabEL consortium will join forces to advance the large scale implementation of telecare technologies and eHealth applications in primary care.