Using the Computer-based Health Evaluation System (CHES) to Support Self-management of Symptoms and Functional Health: Evaluation of Hematological Patient Use of a Web-Based Patient Portal.
chronic lymphocytic leukemia
eHealth
mHealth
monitoring
multiple myeloma
patient portals
patient-reported outcome measures
quality of life
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 06 2021
08 06 2021
Historique:
received:
25
11
2020
accepted:
30
04
2021
revised:
08
02
2021
entrez:
8
6
2021
pubmed:
9
6
2021
medline:
21
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patient portals offer the possibility to assess patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) remotely, and first evidence has demonstrated their potential benefits. In this study, we evaluated patient use of a web-based patient portal that provides patient information and allows online completion of PROMs. A particular focus was on patient motivation for (not) using the portal. The portal was developed to supplement routine monitoring at the Department of Internal Medicine V in Innsbruck. We included patients with multiple myeloma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia who were already participating in routine monitoring at the hospital for use of the patient portal. Patients were introduced to the portal and asked to complete questionnaires prior to their next hospital visits. We used system access logs and 3 consecutive semistructured interviews to analyze patient use and evaluation of the portal. Between July 2017 and August 2020, we approached 122 patients for participation in the study, of whom 83.6% (102/122) consented to use the patient portal. Patients were on average 60 (SD 10.4) years old. Of patients providing data at all study time points, 37% (26/71) consistently used the portal prior to their hospital visits. The main reason for not completing PROMs was forgetting to do so in between visits (25/84, 29%). During an average session, patients viewed 5.3 different pages and spent 9.4 minutes logged on to the portal. Feedback from interviews was largely positive with no patients reporting difficulties navigating the survey and 50% of patients valuing the self-management tools provided in the portal. Regarding the portal content, patients were interested in reviewing their own results and reported high satisfaction with the dynamic self-management advice, also reflected in the high number of clicks on those pages. Patient portals can contribute to patient empowerment by offering sought-after information and self-management advice. In our study, the majority of our patients were open to using the portal. The low number of technical complaints and average time spent in the portal demonstrate the feasibility of our patient portal. While initial interest was high, long-term use was considerably lower and identified as the main area for improvement. In a next step, we will improve several aspects of the patient portal (eg, including a reminder to visit the portal before the next appointment and closer PROM symptom monitoring via an onconurse).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Patient portals offer the possibility to assess patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) remotely, and first evidence has demonstrated their potential benefits.
OBJECTIVE
In this study, we evaluated patient use of a web-based patient portal that provides patient information and allows online completion of PROMs. A particular focus was on patient motivation for (not) using the portal. The portal was developed to supplement routine monitoring at the Department of Internal Medicine V in Innsbruck.
METHODS
We included patients with multiple myeloma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia who were already participating in routine monitoring at the hospital for use of the patient portal. Patients were introduced to the portal and asked to complete questionnaires prior to their next hospital visits. We used system access logs and 3 consecutive semistructured interviews to analyze patient use and evaluation of the portal.
RESULTS
Between July 2017 and August 2020, we approached 122 patients for participation in the study, of whom 83.6% (102/122) consented to use the patient portal. Patients were on average 60 (SD 10.4) years old. Of patients providing data at all study time points, 37% (26/71) consistently used the portal prior to their hospital visits. The main reason for not completing PROMs was forgetting to do so in between visits (25/84, 29%). During an average session, patients viewed 5.3 different pages and spent 9.4 minutes logged on to the portal. Feedback from interviews was largely positive with no patients reporting difficulties navigating the survey and 50% of patients valuing the self-management tools provided in the portal. Regarding the portal content, patients were interested in reviewing their own results and reported high satisfaction with the dynamic self-management advice, also reflected in the high number of clicks on those pages.
CONCLUSIONS
Patient portals can contribute to patient empowerment by offering sought-after information and self-management advice. In our study, the majority of our patients were open to using the portal. The low number of technical complaints and average time spent in the portal demonstrate the feasibility of our patient portal. While initial interest was high, long-term use was considerably lower and identified as the main area for improvement. In a next step, we will improve several aspects of the patient portal (eg, including a reminder to visit the portal before the next appointment and closer PROM symptom monitoring via an onconurse).
Identifiants
pubmed: 34100765
pii: v23i6e26022
doi: 10.2196/26022
pmc: PMC8262597
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e26022Informations de copyright
©Jens Lehmann, Petra Buhl, Johannes M Giesinger, Lisa M Wintner, Monika Sztankay, Lucia Neppl, Wolfgang Willenbacher, Roman Weger, Walpurga Weyrer, Gerhard Rumpold, Bernhard Holzner. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 08.06.2021.
Références
Support Care Cancer. 2016 May;24(5):2163-2171
pubmed: 26563178
JAMA. 2002 Dec 18;288(23):3027-34
pubmed: 12479768
J Support Oncol. 2012 Jul-Aug;10(4):143-8
pubmed: 22609239
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020 Jul 11;18(1):225
pubmed: 32653005
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Mar 10;29(8):954-6
pubmed: 21282536
JAMA. 2017 Jul 11;318(2):197-198
pubmed: 28586821
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jan;21(1):8-9
pubmed: 31838013
BMC Cancer. 2014 Oct 10;14:758
pubmed: 25305067
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jan;21(1):80-94
pubmed: 31838009
JMIR Cancer. 2016 May 10;2(1):e3
pubmed: 28410178
JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Sep;16(9):e958-e965
pubmed: 32463762
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Oct 02;19(10):e330
pubmed: 28970188
J Thorac Oncol. 2019 Jun;14(6):1012-1020
pubmed: 30776447
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Feb 15;22(4):714-24
pubmed: 14966096
Eur J Cancer. 2016 Nov;68:73-81
pubmed: 27721057
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jan 12;376(2):105-108
pubmed: 28076708
J Clin Oncol. 2021 Mar 1;39(7):734-747
pubmed: 33417506
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012 Nov 09;12:126
pubmed: 23140270
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Sep 30;21(9):e15856
pubmed: 31573943
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Jan 24;21(1):e10875
pubmed: 30679145
Qual Life Res. 2015 Jul;24(7):1707-18
pubmed: 25589231
J Clin Nurs. 2015 May;24(9-10):1367-79
pubmed: 25677218
JAMA. 2019 Jan 22;321(3):306-307
pubmed: 30667494
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Feb;118:1-8
pubmed: 31639445
Psychooncology. 2013 Apr;22(4):895-901
pubmed: 22544513
Value Health. 2021 Feb;24(2):250-267
pubmed: 33518032
J Cancer Surviv. 2016 Jun;10(3):573-82
pubmed: 26644190
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2019 Nov;28(6):e13154
pubmed: 31465136
J Oncol Pract. 2014 Jul;10(4):e215-22
pubmed: 24301843
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2019 Dec 28;3(1):74
pubmed: 31884569
Qual Life Res. 2020 Jul 10;:
pubmed: 32651805
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jul 20;29(21):2910-7
pubmed: 21690465