Evaluating the Implementation of a Mobile Phone-Based Telemonitoring Program: Longitudinal Study Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

Patrick Ware, Heather J Ross, Joseph A Cafazzo, Audrey Laporte, Kayleigh Gordon, Emily Seto, Patrick Ware, Heather J Ross, Joseph A Cafazzo, Audrey Laporte, Kayleigh Gordon, Emily Seto

Abstract

Background: Telemonitoring has shown promise for alleviating the burden of heart failure on individuals and health systems. However, real-world implementation of sustained programs is rare.

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation of a mobile phone-based telemonitoring program, which has been implemented as part of standard care in a specialty heart function clinic by answering two research questions: (1) To what extent was the telemonitoring program successfully implemented? (2) What were the barriers and facilitators to implementing the telemonitoring program?

Methods: We conducted a longitudinal single case study. The implementation success was evaluated using the following four implementation outcomes: adoption, penetration, feasibility, and fidelity. Semistructured interviews based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) were conducted at 0, 4, and 12 months with 12 program staff members to identify the barriers and facilitators of the implementation.

Results: One year after the implementation, 98 patients and 8 clinicians were enrolled in the program. Despite minor technical issues, the intervention was used as intended. We obtained qualitative data from clinicians (n=8) and implementation staff members (n=4) for 24 CFIR constructs. A total of 12 constructs were facilitators clustered in the CFIR domains of inner setting (culture, tension for change, compatibility, relative priority, learning climate, leadership engagement, and available resources), characteristics of individuals (knowledge and beliefs about the intervention and self-efficacy), and process (engaging and reflecting and evaluating). In addition, we identified other notable facilitators from the characteristics of the intervention domain (relative advantage and adaptability) and the outer setting (patient needs and resources). Four constructs were perceived as minor barriers- the complexity of the intervention, cost, inadequate communication among high-level stakeholders, and the absence of a formal implementation plan. The remaining CFIR constructs had a neutral impact on the overall implementation.

Conclusions: This is the first comprehensive evaluation of the implementation of a mobile phone-based telemonitoring program. Although the acceptability of the telemonitoring system was high, the strongest facilitators to the implementation success were related to the implementation context. By identifying what works and what does not in a real-world clinical context using a framework-guided approach, this work will inform the design of telemonitoring services and implementation strategies of similar telemonitoring interventions.

Keywords: Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; eHealth; heart failure; implementation; telemonitoring.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: HJR, JAC, and ES hold intellectual property in the Medly system and may profit from future commercialization of the technology.

©Patrick Ware, Heather J Ross, Joseph A Cafazzo, Audrey Laporte, Kayleigh Gordon, Emily Seto. Originally published in JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 31.07.2018.

References

    1. Kitsiou S, Paré G, Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(3):e63. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4174.
    1. Fairbrother P, Ure J, Hanley J, McCloughan L, Denvir M, Sheikh A, McKinstry B, Telescot PT. Telemonitoring for chronic heart failure: the views of patients and healthcare professionals - a qualitative study. J Clin Nurs. 2014 Jan;23(1-2):132–44. doi: 10.1111/jocn.12137.
    1. Prescher S, Deckwart O, Winkler S, Koehler K, Honold M, Koehler F. Telemedical care: feasibility and perception of the patients and physicians: a survey-based acceptance analysis of the Telemedical Interventional Monitoring in Heart Failure (TIM-HF) trial. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2013 Jun;20(2 Suppl):18–24. doi: 10.1177/2047487313487483e.
    1. Seto E, Leonard KJ, Cafazzo JA, Barnsley J, Masino C, Ross HJ. Perceptions and experiences of heart failure patients and clinicians on the use of mobile phone-based telemonitoring. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(1):e25. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1912.
    1. Canada Health Infoway Connecting Patients with Providers: A Pan-Canadian Study on Remote Patient Monitoring. 2014. [2018-07-20]. Connecting Patients with Providers: A Pan-Canadian Study on Remote Patient Monitoring .
    1. Inglis SC, Clark RA, Dierckx R, Prieto-Merino D, Cleland JGF. Structured telephone support or non-invasive telemonitoring for patients with heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(10):CD007228. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007228.pub3.
    1. Kotb A, Cameron C, Hsieh S, Wells G. Comparative Effectiveness of Different Forms of Telemedicine for Individuals with Heart Failure (HF): A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE. 2015 Feb 25;10(2):e0118681. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118681.
    1. Lin M, Yuan W, Huang T, Zhang H, Mai J, Wang J. Clinical effectiveness of telemedicine for chronic heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Investig Med. 2017 Mar 22;65(5):899–911. doi: 10.1136/jim-2016-000199.
    1. Yun JE, Park J, Park H, Lee H, Park D. Comparative Effectiveness of Telemonitoring Versus Usual Care for Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Card Fail. 2018 Jan;24(1):19–28. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2017.09.006.
    1. Greenhalgh T, A'Court C, Shaw S. Understanding heart failure; explaining telehealth - a hermeneutic systematic review. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2017 Jun 14;17(1):156. doi: 10.1186/s12872-017-0594-2.
    1. Brewster L, Mountain G, Wessels B, Kelly C, Hawley M. Factors affecting front line staff acceptance of telehealth technologies: a mixed-method systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2014 Jan;70(1):21–33. doi: 10.1111/jan.12196.
    1. Gagnon M, Ngangue P, Payne-Gagnon J, Desmartis M. m-Health adoption by healthcare professionals: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 Jan;23(1):212–20. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocv052.
    1. Radhakrishnan K, Xie B, Berkley A, Kim M. Barriers and Facilitators for Sustainability of Tele-Homecare Programs: A Systematic Review. Health Serv Res. 2016 Feb;51(1):48–75. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12327.
    1. Lehoux P, Daudelin G, Williams-Jones B, Denis J, Longo C. How do business model and health technology design influence each other? Insights from a longitudinal case study of three academic spin-offs. Research Policy. 2014 Jul;43(6):1025–1038. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.001. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.001.
    1. Meystre S. The current state of telemonitoring: a comment on the literature. Telemed J E Health. 2005 Feb;11(1):63–9. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2005.11.63.
    1. Granja C, Janssen W, Johansen MA. Factors Determining the Success and Failure of eHealth Interventions: Systematic Review of the Literature. J Med Internet Res. 2018 May 01;20(5):e10235. doi: 10.2196/10235.
    1. Hunting G, Shahid N, Sahakyan Y, Fan I, Moneypenny CR, Stanimirovic A, North T, Petrosyan Y, Krahn MD, Rac VE. A multi-level qualitative analysis of Telehomecare in Ontario: challenges and opportunities. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Dec 09;15:544. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-1196-2.
    1. Seto E, Leonard KJ, Cafazzo JA, Barnsley J, Masino C, Ross HJ. Mobile phone-based telemonitoring for heart failure management: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(1):e31. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1909.
    1. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.
    1. Ware P, Ross HJ, Cafazzo JA, Laporte A, Seto E. Implementation and Evaluation of a Smartphone-Based Telemonitoring Program for Patients With Heart Failure: Mixed-Methods Study Protocol. JMIR Res Protoc. 2018 May 03;7(5):e121. doi: 10.2196/resprot.9911.
    1. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, Griffey R, Hensley M. Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2010 Oct 19;38(2):65–76. doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.
    1. Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:117. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-117.
    1. Damschroder LJ, Lowery JC. Evaluation of a large-scale weight management program using the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) Implement Sci. 2013;8:51. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-51.
    1. Kirk MA, Kelley C, Yankey N, Birken SA, Abadie B, Damschroder L. A systematic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Implement Sci. 2016 May 17;11:72. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0437-z.
    1. Lau F, Price M, Keshavjee K. From benefits evaluation to clinical adoption: making sense of health information system success in Canada. Healthc Q. 2011;14(1):39–45.
    1. Meyers DC, Durlak JA, Wandersman A. The quality implementation framework: a synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. Am J Community Psychol. 2012 Dec;50(3-4):462–80. doi: 10.1007/s10464-012-9522-x.

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다