The Impact of Superfast Broadband, Tailored Booklets for Households, and Discussions With General Practitioners on Personal Electronic Health Readiness: Cluster Factorial Quasi-Randomized Control Trial

Philip Abbott-Garner, Janet Richardson, Ray B Jones, Philip Abbott-Garner, Janet Richardson, Ray B Jones

Abstract

Background: Electronic health (eHealth) may improve health outcomes, but many people remain digitally excluded. Personal readiness to use the internet for health may be limited by lack of internet infrastructure, personal skills, social support, service provision, and cost. The impact of interventions to reduce these barriers is unknown. From 2011, the British Government supported the implementation of "superfast" broadband (Superfast) across the rural county of Cornwall. This provided the opportunity to assess the impact of interventions at regional, practice, and household levels.

Objective: This study aimed to assess the impact of 3 interventions on personal eHealth readiness: (1) regional-level implementation of Superfast, (2) practice-level discussions with general practitioners to encourage greater internet use in health service provision, and (3) household-level tailored booklets providing information to help improve personal skills in eHealth.

Methods: This was a cluster quasi-randomized factorial controlled trial. Implementation of Superfast was monitored, and postcodes were classified as having early or late availability. An algorithm selected 78 from 16,385 eligible postcodes to minimize the possibility of overlap between general practices and ensure a balance of urban and rural areas; 1388 households were randomly selected from the 78 postcodes and allocated to the 8 (2 × 2 × 2) study arms. A modified version of the Personal eHealth Readiness Questionnaire was used to compare scores (0 to 10) and 4 components (personal, provision, support, and economic) from baseline (August 2013) to the 18-month follow-up between the 8 arms, to assess the impact of interventions. We compared SDs of scores to assess changes in eHealth inequalities.

Results: eHealth readiness improved over 18 months from 4.36 out of 10 to 4.59 out of 10 (t235=4.18; P<.001; CI=0.13 to 0.35), resulting from increases in personal and provision components of the score (t255=3.191; P=.002 and t258=3.410; P=.001). However, there were no significant differences between the 3 interventions, either singly or in combination using intention-to-treat analysis. The proportion of internet users did not significantly increase (79.2%, 205/259 to 81.5%, 211/259) and mobile use was significantly greater (50.5%, 101/199 to 64.8%, 129/199). There was no change in eHealth inequality.

Conclusions: People in Cornwall became more ready to adopt eHealth services, increasing both their personal ability to use eHealth and their methods of access. The implementation of Superfast may have contributed to this; we are certain that our other 2 interventions did not. This increased eHealth readiness did not cause a larger digital divide. The study illustrates the complexity of conducting a randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of interventions at regional, practice, and household levels. Our method may be of use to others.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00102401; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT02355808 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/75oEz0E1x).

Keywords: broadband implementation; cluster trial; digital divide; eHealth; eHealth inequalities; eHealth readiness; randomized controlled trial; tailored booklet.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Philip Abbott-Garner, Janet Richardson, Ray B Jones. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 11.03.2019.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Sampling and randomization method needed to identify and randomly allocate general practice intervention within Superfast intervention. GP: general practitioner.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials diagram of trial numbers for matched households showing early and late receivers of Superfast.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Where and how 211 internet-using households had accessed the internet in the last 3 months at baseline (October 2013) and follow-up (March 2015).
Figure 4
Figure 4
How internet-using households had used the internet for health-related activities.

References

    1. Office for National Statistics. [2018-06-19]. 2011 Census: Aggregate data (England and Wales) .
    1. Cornwall Council. 2011. [2018-06-19]. Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Strategy to Reduce Health Inequalities Good Health and Well Being for Everyone 2011-2016 .
    1. Superfast Cornwall. [2018-06-19]. Superfast Cornwall: Our Story .
    1. BDUK . . London: Department for culture, media, and sport; 2011. Sep, [2019-01-28]. Broadband Delivery Programme: Delivery Model .
    1. Ekeland AG, Bowes A, Flottorp S. Effectiveness of telemedicine: a systematic review of reviews. Int J Med Inform. 2010 Nov;79(11):736–71. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.08.006.
    1. Elbert NJ, van Os-Medendorp H, van Renselaar W, Ekeland AG, Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Raat H, Nijsten TEC, Pasmans SG. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ehealth interventions in somatic diseases: a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(4):e110. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2790.
    1. Jaana M, Paré G. Home telemonitoring of patients with diabetes: a systematic assessment of observed effects. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007 Apr;13(2):242–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00686.x.
    1. Jackson CL, Bolen S, Brancati FL, Batts-Turner ML, Gary TL. A systematic review of interactive computer-assisted technology in diabetes care. Interactive information technology in diabetes care. J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Feb;21(2):105–10. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00310.x.
    1. Azar M, Gabbay R. Web-based management of diabetes through glucose uploads: has the time come for telemedicine? Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2009 Jan;83(1):9–17. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2008.09.055.
    1. Linn A, Vervloet M, van Dikj L, Smit E, van Veert JC. Effects of eHealth interventions on medication adherence: a systematic review of the literature. J Med Internet Res. 2011 Dec 5;13(4):e103. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1738.
    1. Eland-de Klok P, van Os-Medendorp H, Vergouwe-Meijer A, Bruijnzeel-Koomen C, Ros W. A systematic review of the effects of e-health on chronically ill patients. J Clin Nurs. 2011 Nov;20(21-22):2997–3010. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03743.x.
    1. Reger MA, Gahm GA. A meta-analysis of the effects of internet- and computer-based cognitive-behavioral treatments for anxiety. J Clin Psychol. 2009 Jan;65(1):53–75. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20536.
    1. Spek V, Cuijpers P, Nyklícek I, Riper H, Keyzer J, Pop V. Internet-based cognitive behaviour therapy for symptoms of depression and anxiety: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2007 Mar;37(3):319–28. doi: 10.1017/S0033291706008944.
    1. Stratton E, Lampit A, Choi I, Calvo RA, Harvey SB, Glozier N. Effectiveness of eHealth interventions for reducing mental health conditions in employees: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(12):e0189904. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189904. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189904.
    1. Myung S, McDonnell DD, Kazinets G, Seo HG, Moskowitz JM. Effects of web- and computer-based smoking cessation programs: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2009 May 25;169(10):929–37. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.109.
    1. Civljak M, Stead LF, Hartmann-Boyce J, Sheikh A, Car J. Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;7:CD007078. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007078.pub4.
    1. Krukowski RA, Tilford JM, Harvey-Berino J, West DS. Comparing behavioral weight loss modalities: incremental cost-effectiveness of an internet-based versus an in-person condition. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2011 Aug;19(8):1629–35. doi: 10.1038/oby.2010.341.
    1. Sjöström M, Umefjord G, Lindholm L, Samuelsson E. Cost-effectiveness of an internet-based treatment program for stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015 Mar;34(3):244–50. doi: 10.1002/nau.22540. doi: 10.1002/nau.22540.
    1. van der Meer V, van den Hout WB, Bakker MJ, Rabe KF, Sterk PJ, Assendelft WJ, Kievit J, Sont JK, SMASHING (Self-Management in Asthma Supported by Hospitals, ICT, Nurses and General Practitioners) Study Group Cost-effectiveness of internet-based self-management compared with usual care in asthma. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27108. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027108.
    1. Ljótsson B, Andersson G, Andersson E, Hedman E, Lindfors P, Andréewitch S, Rück C, Lindefors N. Acceptability, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of internet-based exposure treatment for irritable bowel syndrome in a clinical sample: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Gastroenterol. 2011 Oct 12;11:110. doi: 10.1186/1471-230X-11-110.
    1. Warmerdam L, Smit F, van Straten A, Riper H, Cuijpers P. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of internet-based treatment for adults with depressive symptoms: randomized trial. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(5):e53. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1436.
    1. van Os-Medendorp H, Koffijberg H, Eland-de Kok PC, van der Zalm A, de Bruin-Weller MS, Pasmans SG, Ros WJ, Thio HB, Knol MJ, Bruijnzeel-Koomen CA. E-health in caring for patients with atopic dermatitis: a randomized controlled cost-effectiveness study of internet-guided monitoring and online self-management training. Br J Dermatol. 2012 May;166(5):1060–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2012.10829.x.
    1. Dutton WH, Blank G. Oxford Internet Surveys. 2011. [2018-06-19]. Next Generation Users: The Internet in Britain .
    1. Young C, Wilkins A. ResearchGate. 2013. [2018-06-19]. Digital First - 1 Digital First The delivery choice for England's population .
    1. van Dyk JA. The evolution of the digital divide - the digital divide turns to inequality of skills and usage. In: Bus M, Crompton M, Hildebrandt M, Metakides G, editors. Digital Enlightenment Yearbook 2012. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press; 2012. pp. 57–75.
    1. Pearce KE, Rice RE. Digital divides from access to activities: comparing mobile and personal computer internet users. J Commun. 2013;28(2):721–44. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12045.
    1. Sundquist M, Markendahl J. EconStor. Econstor; 2015. Jun 27, [2019-01-28]. A case study cost modelling of regulatory alternatives to mitigate the mobile network coverage and capacity problems in rural areas .
    1. Gatto SL, Tak SH. Computer, internet, and e-mail use among older adults: benefits and barriers. Educational Gerontology. 2008 Aug 22;34(9):800–11. doi: 10.1080/03601270802243697.
    1. Xie B. Older adults, computers, and the internet: future directions. Gerontechnology. 2003 Jun;:289–305. doi: 10.4017/gt.2003.02.04.002.00.
    1. Farrington J, Philip LJ, Cottrill CD, Abbott PA, Blank G, Dutton W. Two-Speed Britain: Rural Internet Use. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press; 2015. pp. 1–56.
    1. Rains SA. Health at high speed: broadband internet access, health communication, and the digital divide. Commun Res. 2008;35(3):283–97. doi: 10.1177/0093650208315958.
    1. Lemaire E, Boudrias Y, Greene G. Low-bandwidth, internet-based videoconferencing for physical rehabilitation consultations. J Telemed Telecare. 2001;7(2):82–9. doi: 10.1258/1357633011936200.
    1. Bartlett C, Simpson K, Turner AN. Patient access to complex chronic disease records on the internet. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012 Aug 6;12(4):87–50. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-12-87.
    1. Jones R. Development of a questionnaire and cross-sectional survey of patient eHealth readiness and eHealth inequalities. Med 2 0. 2013;2(2):e9. doi: 10.2196/med20.2559.
    1. Smith AC, Kimble RM, O'brien A, Mill J, Wootton R. A telepaediatric burns service and the potential travel savings for families living in regional Australia. J Telemed Telecare. 2016 Dec 2;13(3_suppl):76–9. doi: 10.1258/135763307783247130.
    1. Kruse RL, Koopman RJ, Wakefield BJ, Wakefield DS, Keplinger LE, Canfield SM, Mehr DR. Internet use by primary care patients: where is the digital divide? Fam Med. 2012 May;44(5):342–7.
    1. Wagner TH, Bundorf MK, Singer SJ, Baker LC. Free internet access, the digital divide, and health information. Med Care. 2005 Apr;43(4):415–20. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000156857.14152.6e.
    1. Bowen D, Meischke H, Bush N, Wooldridge J, Robbins R, Ludwig A, Escamilla G. Predictors of women's internet access and internet health seeking. Health Care Women Int. 2003 Dec;24(10):940–51. doi: 10.1080/07399330390244130.
    1. Blackburn C, Read J. Using the internet? The experiences of parents of disabled children. Child Care Health Dev. 2005 Sep;31(5):507–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2005.00541.x.
    1. Lenhart A, Horrigan J, Allen K, Boyce A, Madden M, O'Grady E. Pew Research Center. 2003. [2018-06-19]. The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A new look at Internet access and the digital divide
    1. Mancini J, Noguès C, Adenis C, Berthet P, Bonadona V, Chompret A, Coupier I, Eisinger F, Fricker J, Gauthier-Villars M, Lasset C, Lortholary A, N'Guyen TD, Vennin P, Sobol H, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Julian-Reynier C. Patients' characteristics and rate of Internet use to obtain cancer information. J Public Health (Oxf) 2006 Sep;28(3):235–7. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdl019.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Wood GW, Bratan T, Stramer K, Hinder S. Patients' attitudes to the summary care record and HealthSpace: qualitative study. Br Med J. 2008 Jun 7;336(7656):1290–5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a114.
    1. Khechine H, Pascot D, Prémont P. Use of health-related information from the Internet by English-speaking patients. Health Informatics J. 2008 Mar;14(1):17–28. doi: 10.1177/1460458207086331.
    1. Williams P, Nicholas D, Huntington P. Non use of health information kiosks examined in an information needs context. Health Info Libr J. 2003 Jun;20(2):95–103. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-1842.2003.00428.x.
    1. Flynn KE, Smith MA, Freese J. When do older adults turn to the internet for health information? Findings from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study. J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Dec;21(12):1295–301. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00622.x.
    1. Rice RE. Influences, usage, and outcomes of Internet health information searching: multivariate results from the Pew surveys. Int J Med Inform. 2006 Jan;75(1):8–28. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.032.
    1. Houston TK, Allison JJ. Users of internet health information: differences by health status. J Med Internet Res. 2002 Dec;4(2):E7. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4.2.e7.
    1. Renahy E, Parizot I, Chauvin P. Health information seeking on the internet: a double divide? Results from a representative survey in the Paris metropolitan area, France, 2005-2006. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:69. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-69.
    1. Birru MS, Monaco VM, Charles L, Drew H, Njie V, Bierria T, Detlefsen E, Steinman RA. Internet usage by low-literacy adults seeking health information: an observational analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 3;6(3):e25. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e25.
    1. Chan CV, Kaufman DR. A framework for characterizing eHealth literacy demands and barriers. J Med Internet Res. 2011 Nov;13(4):e94. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1750.
    1. Blank G. Oxford Internet Surveys. [2018-06-20]. Proxy users in the UK: an overview
    1. Adams N, Stubbs D, Woods V. Psychological barriers to Internet usage among older adults in the UK. Med Inform Internet Med. 2005 Mar;30(1):3–17. doi: 10.1080/14639230500066876.
    1. Choi NG, Dinitto DM. The digital divide among low-income homebound older adults: internet use patterns, eHealth literacy, and attitudes toward computer/internet use. J Med Internet Res. 2013 May;15(5):e93. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2645.
    1. Trocchia PJ, Janda S. A phenomenological investigation of Internet usage among older individuals. J Consum Mark. 2000;17(7):605–16. doi: 10.1108/07363760010357804.
    1. Hardiker NR, Grant MJ. Barriers and facilitators that affect public engagement with eHealth services. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010;17:13–7.
    1. Age UK. 2013. [2018-06-20]. Digital inclusion evidence review .
    1. Fogel J, Albert SM, Schnabel F, Ditkoff BA, Neugut AI. Use of the Internet by women with breast cancer. J Med Internet Res. 2002;4(2):E9. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4.2.e9.
    1. Peterson MW, Fretz PC. Patient use of the internet for information in a lung cancer clinic. Chest. 2003 Feb;123(2):452–7. doi: 10.1378/chest.123.2.452.
    1. Bukachi F, Pakenham-Walsh N. Information technology for health in developing countries. Chest. 2007 Nov;132(5):1624–30. doi: 10.1378/chest.07-1760.
    1. Légaré E, Vincent C, Lehoux P, Anderson D, Kairy D, Gagnon MP, Jennett P. Telehealth readiness assessment tools. J Telemed Telecare. 2010;16(3):107–9. doi: 10.1258/jtt.2009.009004.
    1. Snyder-Halpern R. Indicators of organizational readiness for clinical information technology/systems innovation: a Delphi study. Int J Med Inform. 2001 Oct;63(3):179–204. doi: 10.1016/S1386-5056(01)00179-4.
    1. Lehman WE, Greener JM, Simpson DD. Assessing organizational readiness for change. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2002 Jun;22(4):197–209. doi: 10.1016/S0740-5472(02)00233-7.
    1. Oliver DR, Demiris G. An assessment of the readiness of hospice organizations to accept technological innovation. J Telemed Telecare. 2004;10(3):170–4. doi: 10.1258/135763304323070832.
    1. Demiris G, Patrick T, Khatri N. Assessing home care agencies' readiness for telehealth. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003:825.
    1. Khoja S, Scott RE, Casebeer AL, Mohsin M, Ishaq AF, Gilani S. e-Health readiness assessment tools for healthcare institutions in developing countries. Telemed J E Health. 2007 Aug;13(4):425–31. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2006.0064.
    1. Jennett P, Jackson A, Ho K, Healy T, Kazanjian A, Woollard R, Haydt S, Bates J. The essence of telehealth readiness in rural communities: an organizational perspective. Telemed J E Health. 2005 Apr;11(2):137–45. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2005.11.137.
    1. Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHEALS: The eHealth Literacy Scale. J Med Internet Res. 2006 Nov;8(4):e27. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8.4.e27.
    1. Zoopla. 2012. [2019-01-28]. Zoopla Full Postcode Finder
    1. Broos A, Roe K. The digital divide in the playstation generation: self-efficacy, locus of control and ICT adoption among adolescents. Poetics. 2006;34(4):306–17. doi: 10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.002.
    1. National Health Service. 2015. [2018-06-20]. Find GP Services .
    1. Learn My Way. 2014. [2019-01-28]. Learn how to use the internet
    1. Office for National Statistics. 2016. May 20, [2018-01-28]. Internet users in the UK Internet users in the UK: 2016 .
    1. Thackeray R, Neiger BL, Smith AK, van Wagenen SB. Adoption and use of social media among public health departments. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:242. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-242.
    1. Ofcom. 2016. Mar 24, [2019-01-28]. UK Home broadband performance: The performance of fixed-line broadband delivered to UK residential consumers .
    1. YouTube Help. [2018-06-20]. System requirements .
    1. St Levan Surgery. [2018-06-20]. .
    1. Campbell JL, Fletcher E, Britten N, Green C, Holt TA, Lattimer V, Richards DA, Richards SH, Salisbury C, Calitri R, Bowyer V, Chaplin K, Kandiyali R, Murdoch J, Roscoe J, Varley A, Warren FC, Taylor RS. Telephone triage for management of same-day consultation requests in general practice (the ESTEEM trial): a cluster-randomised controlled trial and cost-consequence analysis. Lancet. 2014 Nov 22;384(9957):1859–68. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61058-8.
    1. Gavgani VZ, Shiramin AR. Physician directed information prescription service (IPs): barriers and drivers. Aslib Proc. 2013 Mar;65(3):224–41. doi: 10.1108/00012531311330629.
    1. Jones RB, O'Connor A, Brelsford J, Parsons N, Skirton H. Costs and difficulties of recruiting patients to provide e-health support: pilot study in one primary care trust. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012 Mar 29;12:25. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-12-25.
    1. VanGeest JB, Johnson TP, Welch VL. Methodologies for improving response rates in surveys of physicians: a systematic review. Eval Health Prof. 2007 Dec;30(4):303–21. doi: 10.1177/0163278707307899.
    1. de Grood C, Raissi A, Kwon Y, Santana MJ. Adoption of e-health technology by physicians: a scoping review. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016;9:335–44. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S103881. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S103881.
    1. Anderson JG. Social, ethical and legal barriers to e-health. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76(5-6):480–3. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.09.016.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi