Acceptance, Usage, and Barriers of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes Among German Rheumatologists: Survey Study.
eHealth
electronic patient-reported outcome measures
mobile phone
patient perspective
rheumatoid arthritis
rheumatology
Journal
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
ISSN: 2291-5222
Titre abrégé: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101624439
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 07 2020
20 07 2020
Historique:
received:
04
02
2020
accepted:
09
05
2020
revised:
22
04
2020
pubmed:
12
5
2020
medline:
7
4
2021
entrez:
12
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allows for patient-centered, measurable, and transparent care. Electronic PROs (ePROs) have many benefits and hold great potential to improve current usage of PROs, yet limited evidence exists regarding their acceptance, usage, and barriers among rheumatologists. This study aims to evaluate the current level of acceptance, usage, and barriers among German rheumatologists regarding the use of ePROs. The importance of different ePRO features for rheumatologists was investigated. Additionally, the most frequently used PROs for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were identified. Data were collected via an online survey consisting of 18 questions. The survey was completed by members of the Working Group Young Rheumatology of the German Society for Rheumatology (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Junge Rheumatologie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Rheumatologie [DGRh]) at the 2019 annual DGRh conference. Only members currently working in clinical adult rheumatology were eligible to complete the survey. A total of 119 rheumatologists completed the survey, of which 107 (89.9%) reported collecting PROs in routine practice and 28 (25.5%) already used ePROs. Additionally, 44% (43/97) were planning to switch to ePROs in the near future. The most commonly cited reason for not switching was the unawareness of suitable software solutions. Respondents were asked to rate the features of ePROs on a scale of 0 to 100 (0=unimportant, 100=important). The most important features were automatic score calculation and display (mean 77.50) and simple data transfer to medical reports (mean 76.90). When asked about PROs in RA, the respondents listed pain, morning stiffness, and patient global assessment as the most frequently used PROs. The potential of ePROs is widely seen and there is great interest in them. Despite this, only a minority of physicians use ePROs, and the main reason for not implementing them was cited as the unawareness of suitable software solutions. Developers, patients, and rheumatologists should work closely together to help realize the full potential of ePROs and ensure a seamless integration into clinical practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allows for patient-centered, measurable, and transparent care. Electronic PROs (ePROs) have many benefits and hold great potential to improve current usage of PROs, yet limited evidence exists regarding their acceptance, usage, and barriers among rheumatologists.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to evaluate the current level of acceptance, usage, and barriers among German rheumatologists regarding the use of ePROs. The importance of different ePRO features for rheumatologists was investigated. Additionally, the most frequently used PROs for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were identified.
METHODS
Data were collected via an online survey consisting of 18 questions. The survey was completed by members of the Working Group Young Rheumatology of the German Society for Rheumatology (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Junge Rheumatologie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Rheumatologie [DGRh]) at the 2019 annual DGRh conference. Only members currently working in clinical adult rheumatology were eligible to complete the survey.
RESULTS
A total of 119 rheumatologists completed the survey, of which 107 (89.9%) reported collecting PROs in routine practice and 28 (25.5%) already used ePROs. Additionally, 44% (43/97) were planning to switch to ePROs in the near future. The most commonly cited reason for not switching was the unawareness of suitable software solutions. Respondents were asked to rate the features of ePROs on a scale of 0 to 100 (0=unimportant, 100=important). The most important features were automatic score calculation and display (mean 77.50) and simple data transfer to medical reports (mean 76.90). When asked about PROs in RA, the respondents listed pain, morning stiffness, and patient global assessment as the most frequently used PROs.
CONCLUSIONS
The potential of ePROs is widely seen and there is great interest in them. Despite this, only a minority of physicians use ePROs, and the main reason for not implementing them was cited as the unawareness of suitable software solutions. Developers, patients, and rheumatologists should work closely together to help realize the full potential of ePROs and ensure a seamless integration into clinical practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32390592
pii: v8i7e18117
doi: 10.2196/18117
pmc: PMC7400039
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e18117Informations de copyright
©Martin Krusche, Philipp Klemm, Manuel Grahammer, Johanna Mucke, Diana Vossen, Arnd Kleyer, Philipp Sewerin, Johannes Knitza. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 20.07.2020.
Références
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2019 Jan;71(1):80-87
pubmed: 29669191
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2003 Sep-Oct;21(5 Suppl 31):S154-7
pubmed: 14969068
RMD Open. 2016 Aug 18;2(2):e000202
pubmed: 27651921
Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2019 May;45(2):257-273
pubmed: 30952397
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2018 Dec;48(3):357-366
pubmed: 29709290
Trials. 2019 Mar 22;20(1):182
pubmed: 30902094
Arthritis Rheum. 2013 Dec;65(12):3096-106
pubmed: 23983141
J Clin Med. 2019 Jun 28;8(7):
pubmed: 31261785
Arthritis Res Ther. 2017 Sep 26;19(1):212
pubmed: 28950896
Int J Rheum Dis. 2019 Sep;22(9):1706-1713
pubmed: 31359630
Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Jan;77(1):3-17
pubmed: 28684559
Ann Rheum Dis. 2010 Mar;69(3):575-8
pubmed: 19389716
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2017 Oct 1;56(10):1707-1712
pubmed: 28957553
Int J Clin Rheumtol. 2015 Oct 1;10(5):345-356
pubmed: 27087857
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018 Apr;70(4):617-626
pubmed: 29400009
Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Feb;79(2):170-175
pubmed: 31662320
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2000 Mar;39(3):321-7
pubmed: 10788543
RMD Open. 2015 Apr 02;1(1):e000019
pubmed: 26509052
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Aug 05;7(8):e14991
pubmed: 31381501
Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Jun;76(6):948-959
pubmed: 27979873
Z Rheumatol. 2017 Apr;76(3):195-207
pubmed: 28364218
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018 May;70(5):801-806
pubmed: 28834390
Scand J Rheumatol. 2019 May;48(3):178-184
pubmed: 30444168
Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2018 May;30(3):231-237
pubmed: 29461286
Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Oct 25;8:737-742
pubmed: 27822121
RMD Open. 2016 Nov 24;2(2):e000302
pubmed: 27933206
Eur J Rheumatol. 2019 May 20;6(3):136-141
pubmed: 31329541
J Rheumatol. 2003 Jan;30(1):167-78
pubmed: 12508408
J Biomed Inform. 2013 Oct;46(5):947-54
pubmed: 23810858
Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2019 Mar;15(3):180-186
pubmed: 30700865
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Jan;68(1):1-26
pubmed: 26545940
Rheumatol Int. 2018 Jun;38(6):935-947
pubmed: 29564549
RMD Open. 2015 Nov 19;1(1):e000114
pubmed: 26629364
J Rheumatol. 2014 Mar;41(3):581-92
pubmed: 24429182
Z Rheumatol. 2019 Nov;78(9):839-846
pubmed: 30542914
Z Rheumatol. 2019 Oct;78(8):692-697
pubmed: 31468164
J Rheumatol. 2018 Jan;45(1):40-44
pubmed: 29142029
JMIR Res Protoc. 2019 Sep 26;8(9):e14665
pubmed: 31573949