Effect of patient-initiated versus fixed-interval telePRO-based outpatient follow-up: study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled study

Liv Marit Valen Schougaard, Caroline Trillingsgaard Mejdahl, Klaus Hvam Petersen, Anne Jessen, Annette de Thurah, Per Sidenius, Kirsten Lomborg, Niels Henrik Hjollund, Liv Marit Valen Schougaard, Caroline Trillingsgaard Mejdahl, Klaus Hvam Petersen, Anne Jessen, Annette de Thurah, Per Sidenius, Kirsten Lomborg, Niels Henrik Hjollund

Abstract

Background: The traditional system of routine outpatient follow-up of chronic disease in secondary care may involve a waste of resources if patients are well. The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) could support more flexible, cost-saving follow-up activities. AmbuFlex is a PRO system used in outpatient follow-up in the Central Denmark Region. PRO questionnaires are sent to patients at fixed intervals. The clinicians use the PRO data to decide whether a patient needs a visit or not (standard telePRO). PRO may make patients become more involved in their own care pathway, which may improve their self-management. Better self-management may also be achieved by letting patients initiate contact. The aim of this study is to obtain data on the effects of patient-initiated follow-up (open access telePRO) on resource utilisation, quality of care, and the patient perspective.

Methods: The study is a pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial in outpatients with epilepsy. Participants are randomly assigned to one of two follow-up activities: a) standard telePRO or b) open access telePRO. Inclusion criteria are age ≥ 15 years and previous referral to standard telePRO follow-up at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. Furthermore, patients must have answered the last questionnaire via the Internet. The number of contacts will be used as the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures include well-being (WHO-5 Well-Being Index), general health, number of seizures, treatment side effects, mortality, health literacy (Health Literacy Questionnaire), self-efficacy (General Self-Efficacy scale), patient activation, confidence, safety, and satisfaction. In addition, the patient perspective will be explored by qualitative methods. Data will be collected at baseline and 18 month after randomisation. Inclusion of patients in the study started in January 2016. Statistical analysis will be performed on an intention-to-treat and per-protocol basis. For qualitative data, the interpretive description strategy will be used.

Discussion: The benefits and possible drawbacks of the PRO-based open access approach will be evaluated. The present study will provide important knowledge to guide future telePRO interventions in relation to effect on resource utilisation, quality of care, and the patient perspective.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02673580 (Registration date January 28, 2016).

Keywords: Clinical practice; Open access; Outpatient clinic; Outpatient follow-up; Patient-reported outcomes; Randomised controlled trial; TelePRO.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Screen capture of the clinicians’ overview in epilepsy clinics accessed from the Electronic Health Record of Central Denmark Region [13]. The colour dots in the upper row indicate the result of the automated PRO algorithm (red: definite need of contact, yellow: possible need of contact, green: no need of contact). Note that the colours of the bars have different meanings. The bars indicate the severity of the symptoms reported by the patient. A red or orange bar indicates a self-reported problem, a yellow bar some problem, and a green bar indicates no problems. Note: Labels were translated from Danish
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The open access telePRO website “My Epilepsy”. Note: Labels were translated from Danish
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
PRO response overview customised to outpatients with epilepsy. A red or orange bar indicates a self reported problem, a yellow bar some problem, and green bar indicates no problems. Note: Labels were translated from Danish
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Flowchart following patients from inclusion to final data collection

References

    1. Indenrigs- og Sundhedsministeriet. Analyse af aktiviteten i sygehusvæsenet. 2010. . Accessed 6 June 2016.
    1. Whear R, Abdul-Rahman AK, Boddy K, Thompson-Coon J, Perry M, Stein K. The clinical effectiveness of patient initiated clinics for patients with chronic or recurrent conditions managed in secondary care: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e74774. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074774.
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2009. . Accessed 6 Jun 2016.
    1. Marshall S, Haywood K, Fitzpatrick R. Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006;12(5):559–68. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00650.x.
    1. Chen J, Ou L, Hollis SJ. A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:211–6963. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-211.
    1. Johansen MA, Berntsen GK, Schuster T, Henriksen E, Horsch A. Electronic symptom reporting between patient and provider for improved health care service quality: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. part 2: methodological quality and effects. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(5):e126. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2216.
    1. Valderas JM, Kotzeva A, Espallargues M, Guyatt G, Ferrans CE, Halyard MY, Revicki DA, Symonds T, Parada A, Alonso J. The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res. 2008;17(2):179–93. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9295-0.
    1. Bennett AV, Jensen RE, Basch E. Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62(5):336–47. doi: 10.3322/caac.21150.
    1. Boyce MB, Browne JP, Greenhalgh J. The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(6):508–18. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002524.
    1. Greenhalgh J. The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why? Qual Life Res. 2009;18(1):115–23. doi: 10.1007/s11136-008-9430-6.
    1. Barlow J, Wright C, Sheasby J, Turner A, Hainsworth J. Self-management approaches for people with chronic conditions: a review. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;48(2):177–87. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(02)00032-0.
    1. Hjollund NH, Larsen LP, Biering K, Johnsen SP, Riiskjaer E, Schougaard LM. Use of Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) measures at group and patient levels: experiences from the generic integrated PRO system, WestChronic Interact. J Med Res. 2014;3(1):e5.
    1. Schougaard LM, Larsen LP, Jessen A, Sidenius P, Dorflinger L, de Thurah A, Hjollund NH: AmbuFlex: tele-patient-reported outcomes (telePRO) as the basis for follow-up in chronic and malignant diseases. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):525–34.
    1. Danish Agency for Digitalisation and PA Consulting Group. Analyse af Patient Rapporterede Oplysninger (PRO). 2015. . Accessed 6 Jun 2016.
    1. Center for Telemedicin, Region Midtjylland. AmbuFlex – Behovsstyrede ambulante patientforløb med spørgeskemabaseret klinisk selvmonitorering. Bilag: Patientperspektiv – interview med 13 epilepsipatienter. 2013 (In Danish).
    1. Taneja A, Su'a B, Hill AG. Efficacy of patient-initiated follow-up clinics in secondary care: a systematic review. Intern Med J. 2014;44(12a):1156–60. doi: 10.1111/imj.12533.
    1. Whear R, Abdul-Rahman AK, Thompson-Coon J, Boddy K, Perry MG, Stein K. Patient initiated clinics for patients with chronic or recurrent conditions managed in secondary care: a systematic review of patient reported outcomes and patient and clinician satisfaction. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:501. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-501.
    1. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gotzsche PC, Krleza-Jeric K, Hrobjartsson A, Mann H, Dickersin K, Berlin JA, Dore CJ, Parulekar WR, Summerskill WS, Groves T, Schulz KF, Sox HC, Rockhold FW, Rennie D, Moher D. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):200–7. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583.
    1. Zelen M. A new design for randomized clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1979;300(22):1242–5. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197905313002203.
    1. Bech P, Gudex C, Johansen KS. The WHO (Ten) well-being index: validation in diabetes. Psychother Psychosom. 1996;65(4):183–90. doi: 10.1159/000289073.
    1. Topp CW, Ostergaard SD, Sondergaard S, Bech P. The WHO-5 well-being index: a systematic review of the literature. Psychother Psychosom. 2015;84(3):167–76. doi: 10.1159/000376585.
    1. Bjorner JB, Damsgaard MT, Watt T, Groenvold M. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability of the Danish SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):1001–11. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00092-4.
    1. Bjorner JB, Thunedborg K, Kristensen TS, Modvig J, Bech P. The Danish SF-36 Health Survey: translation and preliminary validity studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):991–9. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00091-2.
    1. Gandek B, Ware JE, Jr, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, Apolone G, Bjorner J, Brazier J, Bullinger M, Fukuhara S, Kaasa S, Leplege A, Sullivan M. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability of the SF-36 in eleven countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):1149–58. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00106-1.
    1. Maindal HT, Kayser L, Norgaard O, Bo A, Elsworth GR, Osborne RH. Cultural adaptation and validation of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ): robust nine-dimension Danish language confirmatory factor model. Springerplus. 2016;5(1):1232. doi: 10.1186/s40064-016-2887-9.
    1. Osborne RH, Batterham RW, Elsworth GR, Hawkins M, Buchbinder R. The grounded psychometric development and initial validation of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) BMC Public Health. 2013;13:658. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-658.
    1. Luszczynska A, Scholz U, Schwarzer R. The general self-efficacy scale: multicultural validation studies. J Psychol. 2005;139(5):439–57. doi: 10.3200/JRLP.139.5.439-457.
    1. Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Generalized self-efficacy scale. In: Weinman J, Wright S, Johnston M, editors. Measures in health psychology: a user’s portfolio. causal and control beliefs. Windsor: NFER-NELSON; 1995. pp. 35–7.
    1. Scholz U, Gutiérrez-Doña B, Sud S, Schwarzer R. Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2002;18(3):242–51. doi: 10.1027//1015-5759.18.3.242.
    1. Maindal HT, Sokolowski I, Vedsted P. Translation, adaptation and validation of the American short form patient activation measure (PAM13) in a Danish version. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:209. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-209.
    1. Thorne S. Interpretive Description. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, Inc; 2008.
    1. Williams JG, Cheung WY, Russell IT, Cohen DR, Longo M, Lervy B. Open access follow up for inflammatory bowel disease: pragmatic randomised trial and cost effectiveness study. BMJ. 2000;320(7234):544–8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7234.544.
    1. Fountain NB, Van Ness PC, Swain-Eng R, Tonn S, Bever CT, Jr, American Academy of Neurology Epilepsy Measure Development Panel and the American Medical Association-Convened Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement Independent Measure Development Process Quality improvement in neurology: AAN epilepsy quality measures: report of the quality measurement and reporting subcommittee of the American academy of neurology. Neurology. 2011;76(1):94–9. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318203e9d1.
    1. Sorensen HT, Lash TL, Rothman KJ. Beyond randomized controlled trials: a critical comparison of trials with nonrandomized studies. Hepatology. 2006;44(5):1075–82. doi: 10.1002/hep.21404.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa