Addressing Implementation Challenges to Digital Care Delivery for Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions: Stakeholder Feedback in a Randomized Controlled Trial.
care management
mobile phone
remote patient monitoring
smartphones
telehealth tools
Journal
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
ISSN: 2291-5222
Titre abrégé: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101624439
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 02 2021
01 02 2021
Historique:
received:
14
08
2020
accepted:
17
11
2020
revised:
06
11
2020
entrez:
1
2
2021
pubmed:
2
2
2021
medline:
30
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Digital tools accessed via smartphones can promote chronic condition management, reduce disparities in health care and hospital readmissions, and improve quality of life. However, whether digital care strategies can be implemented successfully on a large scale with traditionally underserved populations remains uncertain. As part of a randomized trial comparing care delivery strategies for Medicaid and Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions, our stakeholders identified implementation challenges, and we developed stakeholder-driven adaptions to improve a digitally delivered care management strategy (high-tech care). We used 4 mechanisms (study support log, Patient Partners Work Group log, case interview log, and implementation meeting minutes) to capture stakeholder feedback about technology-related challenges and solutions from 9 patient partners, 129 participants, and 32 care managers and used these data to develop and implement solutions. To assess the impact, we analyzed high-tech care exit surveys and intervention engagement outcomes (video visits and condition-specific text message check-ins sent at varying intervals) before and after each solution was implemented. Challenges centered around 2 themes: difficulty using both smartphones and high-tech care components and difficulty using high-tech care components due to connectivity issues. To respond to the first theme's challenges, we devised 3 solutions: tech visits (eg, in-person technology support visits), tech packet (eg, participant-facing technology user guide), and tailored condition-specific text message check-ins. During the first 20 months of implementation, 73 participants received at least one tech visit. We observed a 15% increase in video call completion for participants with data before and after the tech visit (n=25) and a 7% increase in check-in completion for participants with data before and after the tech visit (n=59). Of the 379 participants given a tech packet, 179 completed care during this timeframe and were eligible for an exit survey. Of the survey respondents, 76% (73/96) found the tech packet helpful and 64% (62/96) actively used it during care. To support condition-specific text message check-in completion, we allowed for adaption of day and/or time of the text message with 31 participants changing the time they received check-ins and change in standard biometric settings with 13 physicians requesting personalized settings for participants. To respond to the second theme's challenges, tech visits or phone calls were made to demonstrate how to use a smartphone to connect or disconnect from the internet, to schedule video calls, or for condition-specific text message check-ins in a location with broadband/internet. Having structured stakeholder feedback mechanisms is key to identify challenges and solutions to digital care engagement. Creating flexible and scalable solutions to technology-related challenges will increase equity in accessing digital care and support more effective engagement of chronically ill populations in the use of these digital care tools. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03451630; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03451630.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Digital tools accessed via smartphones can promote chronic condition management, reduce disparities in health care and hospital readmissions, and improve quality of life. However, whether digital care strategies can be implemented successfully on a large scale with traditionally underserved populations remains uncertain.
OBJECTIVE
As part of a randomized trial comparing care delivery strategies for Medicaid and Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions, our stakeholders identified implementation challenges, and we developed stakeholder-driven adaptions to improve a digitally delivered care management strategy (high-tech care).
METHODS
We used 4 mechanisms (study support log, Patient Partners Work Group log, case interview log, and implementation meeting minutes) to capture stakeholder feedback about technology-related challenges and solutions from 9 patient partners, 129 participants, and 32 care managers and used these data to develop and implement solutions. To assess the impact, we analyzed high-tech care exit surveys and intervention engagement outcomes (video visits and condition-specific text message check-ins sent at varying intervals) before and after each solution was implemented.
RESULTS
Challenges centered around 2 themes: difficulty using both smartphones and high-tech care components and difficulty using high-tech care components due to connectivity issues. To respond to the first theme's challenges, we devised 3 solutions: tech visits (eg, in-person technology support visits), tech packet (eg, participant-facing technology user guide), and tailored condition-specific text message check-ins. During the first 20 months of implementation, 73 participants received at least one tech visit. We observed a 15% increase in video call completion for participants with data before and after the tech visit (n=25) and a 7% increase in check-in completion for participants with data before and after the tech visit (n=59). Of the 379 participants given a tech packet, 179 completed care during this timeframe and were eligible for an exit survey. Of the survey respondents, 76% (73/96) found the tech packet helpful and 64% (62/96) actively used it during care. To support condition-specific text message check-in completion, we allowed for adaption of day and/or time of the text message with 31 participants changing the time they received check-ins and change in standard biometric settings with 13 physicians requesting personalized settings for participants. To respond to the second theme's challenges, tech visits or phone calls were made to demonstrate how to use a smartphone to connect or disconnect from the internet, to schedule video calls, or for condition-specific text message check-ins in a location with broadband/internet.
CONCLUSIONS
Having structured stakeholder feedback mechanisms is key to identify challenges and solutions to digital care engagement. Creating flexible and scalable solutions to technology-related challenges will increase equity in accessing digital care and support more effective engagement of chronically ill populations in the use of these digital care tools.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03451630; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03451630.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33522981
pii: v9i2e23498
doi: 10.2196/23498
pmc: PMC7884214
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03451630']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e23498Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
©Kelly Williams, Sarah Markwardt, Shannon M Kearney, Jordan F Karp, Kevin L Kraemer, Margaret J Park, Paul Freund, Andrew Watson, James Schuster, Ellen Beckjord. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 01.02.2021.
Références
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jan 20;19(1):e18
pubmed: 28108430
Ann Fam Med. 2003 May-Jun;1(1):15-21
pubmed: 15043175
Eff Clin Pract. 1998 Aug-Sep;1(1):2-4
pubmed: 10345255
Health Aff (Millwood). 2019 Jan;38(1):115-123
pubmed: 30615535
Health Expect. 2015 Dec;18(6):3079-87
pubmed: 25363660
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2015 Mar;12(3):323-31
pubmed: 25642649
JAMA. 2002 Oct 9;288(14):1775-9
pubmed: 12365965
J Nurs Care Qual. 2003 Jul-Sep;18(3):162-74
pubmed: 12856900
J Aging Health. 2010 Sep;22(6):804-26
pubmed: 20495159
MedGenMed. 2001 Mar 05;3(2):2
pubmed: 11549951
World Psychiatry. 2017 Oct;16(3):287-298
pubmed: 28941113
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006 Jan-Feb;13(1):40-51
pubmed: 16221935
Ann Fam Med. 2017 Mar;15(2):165-170
pubmed: 28289118
JAMA. 2002 Oct 16;288(15):1909-14
pubmed: 12377092
Milbank Q. 1996;74(4):511-44
pubmed: 8941260
Telemed J E Health. 2017 Jan;23(1):3-17
pubmed: 27116181
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 07;(9):CD002098
pubmed: 26343551
Transl Behav Med. 2020 Feb 3;10(1):292-301
pubmed: 32011721
JMIR Form Res. 2019 Oct 10;3(4):e14052
pubmed: 31603427
Nurse Pract. 2012 Mar 13;37(3):32-8; quiz 38-9
pubmed: 22289883
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Jul 22;21(7):e12869
pubmed: 31333198
N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 5;381(10):956-968
pubmed: 31483966