Digital Monitoring and Management of Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Cancer Immunotherapy and Its Impact on Quality of Clinical Care: Interview and Survey Study Among Health Care Professionals and Patients

Oliver Schmalz, Christine Jacob, Johannes Ammann, Blasius Liss, Sanna Iivanainen, Manuel Kammermann, Jussi Koivunen, Alexander Klein, Razvan Andrei Popescu, Oliver Schmalz, Christine Jacob, Johannes Ammann, Blasius Liss, Sanna Iivanainen, Manuel Kammermann, Jussi Koivunen, Alexander Klein, Razvan Andrei Popescu

Abstract

Background: Cancer immunotherapy (CIT), as a monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy, has been shown to extend overall survival in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, patients experience treatment-related symptoms that they are required to recall between hospital visits. Digital patient monitoring and management (DPMM) tools may improve clinical practice by allowing real-time symptom reporting.

Objective: This proof-of-concept pilot study assessed patient and health care professional (HCP) adoption of our DPMM tool, which was designed specifically for patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC treated with CIT, and the tool's impact on clinical care.

Methods: Four advisory boards were assembled in order to co-develop a drug- and indication-specific CIT (CIT+) module, based on a generic CIT DPMM tool from Kaiku Health, Helsinki, Finland. A total of 45 patients treated with second-line single-agent CIT (ie, atezolizumab or otherwise) for advanced or metastatic NSCLC, as well as HCPs, whose exact number was decided by the clinics, were recruited from 10 clinics in Germany, Finland, and Switzerland between February and May 2019. All clinics were provided with the Kaiku Health generic CIT DPMM tool, including our CIT+ module. Data on user experience, overall satisfaction, and impact of the tool on clinical practice were collected using anonymized surveys-answers ranged from 1 (low agreement) to 5 (high agreement)-and HCP interviews; surveys and interviews consisted of closed-ended Likert scales and open-ended questions, respectively. The first survey was conducted after 2 months of DPMM use, and a second survey and HCP interviews were conducted at study end (ie, after ≥3 months of DPMM use); only a subgroup of HCPs from each clinic responded to the surveys and interviews. Survey data were analyzed quantitatively; interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and translated into English, where applicable, for coding and qualitative thematic analysis.

Results: Among interim survey respondents (N=51: 13 [25%] nurses, 11 [22%] physicians, and 27 [53%] patients), mean rankings of the tool's seven usability attributes ranged from 3.2 to 4.4 (nurses), 3.7 to 4.5 (physicians), and 3.7 to 4.2 (patients). At the end-of-study survey (N=48: 19 [40%] nurses, 8 [17%] physicians, and 21 [44%] patients), most respondents agreed that the tool facilitated more efficient and focused discussions between patients and HCPs (nurses and patients: mean rating 4.2, SD 0.8; physicians: mean rating 4.4, SD 0.8) and allowed HCPs to tailor discussions with patients (mean rating 4.35, SD 0.65). The standalone tool was well integrated into HCP daily clinical workflow (mean rating 3.80, SD 0.75), enabled workflow optimization between physicians and nurses (mean rating 3.75, SD 0.80), and saved time by decreasing phone consultations (mean rating 3.75, SD 1.00) and patient visits (mean rating 3.45, SD 1.20). Workload was the most common challenge of tool use among respondents (12/19, 63%).

Conclusions: Our results demonstrate high user satisfaction and acceptance of DPMM tools by HCPs and patients, and highlight the improvements to clinical care in patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC treated with CIT monotherapy. However, further integration of the tool into the clinical information technology data flow is required. Future studies or registries using our DPMM tool may provide insights into significant effects on patient quality of life or health-economic benefits.

Keywords: advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer; cancer immunotherapy; digital patient monitoring; drug- and indication-specific cancer immunotherapy module; eHealth; mHealth; patient-reported outcomes; quality of patient care; real-time symptom reporting; user experience.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: All authors received support for third-party writing assistance for this manuscript, provided by F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland. OS and BL have acted in an advisory and consultancy role for F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd (payment planned). CJ and MK have received honoraria from, and have acted as external consultants for, F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. JA and AK are employees of, and hold shares and stocks in, F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. SI has acted in a consultancy and advisory role for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; has participated in a speaker bureau or provided expert testimony for Boehringer Ingelheim; is an employee at an institution that has received a research grant or funding from Roche; and has received travel and accommodation expenses from Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Novartis, and Kaiku Health. MK is a part-time contractor for F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. JK has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Takeda; has acted in a consultancy and advisory role for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Faron, Kaiku Health, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Takeda; has received a research grant or funding from Roche; and has received travel and accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Faron, Kaiku Health, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Takeda. MG is an employee at an institution that has received honoraria from F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. RP has acted in a consultancy and advisory role for Roche, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Vifor Pharma, and Nutricia (all payments received by the institution) and is an employee at an institution that has received a research grant or funding from Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, and AbbVie.

©Oliver Schmalz, Christine Jacob, Johannes Ammann, Blasius Liss, Sanna Iivanainen, Manuel Kammermann, Jussi Koivunen, Alexander Klein, Razvan Andrei Popescu. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 21.12.2020.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Characteristics of end-of-study survey respondents and digital patient monitoring and management (DPMM) tool usage (N=48: 19 [40%] nurses, 8 [17%] physicians, and 21 [44%] patients). (A) gender, (B) age, (C) DPMM use (ie, response to "Have you used Kaiku Health or other similar digital monitoring tools before this pilot?"), (D) level of proficiency (ie, response to "How would you rate your current proficiency level with regard to Kaiku Health?"), (E) usage rate (ie, response to "How often do you use Kaiku Health?"), and (F) time spent per session using the tool for clinicians and patients. Data are the number of respondents who provided the given response.

References

    1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel R, Torre L, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492.
    1. Perez-Moreno P, Brambilla E, Thomas R, Soria J. Squamous cell carcinoma of the lung: Molecular subtypes and therapeutic opportunities. Clin Cancer Res. 2012 May 01;18(9):2443–2451. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2370.
    1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Version 7.2019. 2019. Aug 30, [2020-12-06]. .
    1. Planchard D, Popat S, Kerr K, Novello S, Smit EF, Faivre-Finn C, Mok TS, Reck M, Van Schil PE, Hellmann MD, Peters S, ESMO Guidelines Committee Metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2018 Oct 01;29(Suppl 4):iv192–iv237. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy275.
    1. Roche Registration GmbH Annex 1: Summary of product characteristics. European Medicines Agency. 2020. [2020-02-01]. .
    1. Gandhi L, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Gadgeel S, Esteban E, Felip E, De Angelis F, Domine M, Clingan P, Hochmair MJ, Powell SF, Cheng SY, Bischoff HG, Peled N, Grossi F, Jennens RR, Reck M, Hui R, Garon EB, Boyer M, Rubio-Viqueira B, Novello S, Kurata T, Gray JE, Vida J, Wei Z, Yang J, Raftopoulos H, Pietanza MC, Garassino MC, KEYNOTE-189 Investigators Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018 May 31;378(22):2078–2092. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801005.
    1. Paz-Ares L, Luft A, Vicente D, Tafreshi A, Gümüş M, Mazières J, Hermes B, Çay Şenler F, Csőszi T, Fülöp A, Rodríguez-Cid J, Wilson J, Sugawara S, Kato T, Lee KH, Cheng Y, Novello S, Halmos B, Li X, Lubiniecki GM, Piperdi B, Kowalski DM, KEYNOTE-407 Investigators Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 22;379(21):2040–2051. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1810865.
    1. Fehrenbacher L, Spira A, Ballinger M, Kowanetz M, Vansteenkiste J, Mazieres J, Park K, Smith D, Artal-Cortes A, Lewanski C, Braiteh F, Waterkamp D, He P, Zou W, Chen DS, Yi J, Sandler A, Rittmeyer A, POPLAR Study Group Atezolizumab versus docetaxel for patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (POPLAR): A multicentre, open-label, phase 2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016 Apr 30;387(10030):1837–1846. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00587-0.
    1. Herbst RS, Baas P, Kim D, Felip E, Pérez-Gracia JL, Han J, Molina J, Kim J, Arvis CD, Ahn M, Majem M, Fidler MJ, de Castro G, Garrido M, Lubiniecki GM, Shentu Y, Im E, Dolled-Filhart M, Garon EB. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): A randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016 Apr 09;387(10027):1540–1550. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01281-7.
    1. Rittmeyer A, Barlesi F, Waterkamp D, Park K, Ciardiello F, von Pawel J, Gadgeel SM, Hida T, Kowalski DM, Dols MC, Cortinovis DL, Leach J, Polikoff J, Barrios C, Kabbinavar F, Frontera OA, De Marinis F, Turna H, Lee J, Ballinger M, Kowanetz M, He P, Chen DS, Sandler A, Gandara DR, OAK Study Group Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): A phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017 Jan 21;389(10066):255–265. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32517-X.
    1. Socinski MA, Jotte RM, Cappuzzo F, Orlandi F, Stroyakovskiy D, Nogami N, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Moro-Sibilot D, Thomas CA, Barlesi F, Finley G, Kelsch C, Lee A, Coleman S, Deng Y, Shen Y, Kowanetz M, Lopez-Chavez A, Sandler A, Reck M, IMpower150 Study Group Atezolizumab for first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jun 14;378(24):2288–2301. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1716948.
    1. West H, McCleod M, Hussein M, Morabito A, Rittmeyer A, Conter HJ, Kopp H, Daniel D, McCune S, Mekhail T, Zer A, Reinmuth N, Sadiq A, Sandler A, Lin W, Ochi Lohmann T, Archer V, Wang L, Kowanetz M, Cappuzzo F. Atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower130): A multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jul;20(7):924–937. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30167-6.
    1. Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L, Spigel DR, Steins M, Ready NE, Chow LQ, Vokes EE, Felip E, Holgado E, Barlesi F, Kohlhäufl M, Arrieta O, Burgio MA, Fayette J, Lena H, Poddubskaya E, Gerber DE, Gettinger SN, Rudin CM, Rizvi N, Crinò L, Blumenschein GR, Antonia SJ, Dorange C, Harbison CT, Graf Finckenstein F, Brahmer JR. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct 22;373(17):1627–1639. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1507643.
    1. Immunotherapy Side Effects. Lugano, Switzerland: European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO); 2017. [2020-02-01]. .
    1. Iyer S, Roughley A, Rider A, Taylor-Stokes G. The symptom burden of non-small cell lung cancer in the USA: A real-world cross-sectional study. Support Care Cancer. 2014 Jan;22(1):181–187. doi: 10.1007/s00520-013-1959-4.
    1. Andikyan V, Rezk Y, Einstein MH, Gualtiere G, Leitao MM, Sonoda Y, Abu-Rustum NR, Barakat RR, Basch EM, Chi DS. A prospective study of the feasibility and acceptability of a web-based, electronic patient-reported outcome system in assessing patient recovery after major gynecologic cancer surgery. Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Nov;127(2):273–277. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.07.124.
    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. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-211.
    1. Velikova G, Keding A, Harley C, Cocks K, Booth L, Smith AB, Wright P, Selby PJ, Brown JM. Patients report improvements in continuity of care when quality of life assessments are used routinely in oncology practice: Secondary outcomes of a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer. 2010 Sep;46(13):2381–2388. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.04.030.
    1. Basch E, Reeve BB, Mitchell SA, Clauser SB, Minasian LM, Dueck AC, Mendoza TR, Hay J, Atkinson TM, Abernethy AP, Bruner DW, Cleeland CS, Sloan JA, Chilukuri R, Baumgartner P, Denicoff A, St Germain D, O'Mara AM, Chen A, Kelaghan J, Bennett AV, Sit L, Rogak L, Barz A, Paul DB, Schrag D. Development of the National Cancer Institute's patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE) J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Sep;106(9):dju244. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju244.
    1. Warrington L, Absolom K, Conner M, Kellar I, Clayton B, Ayres M, Velikova G. Electronic systems for patients to report and manage side effects of cancer treatment: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Jan 24;21(1):e10875. doi: 10.2196/10875.
    1. Basch E, Deal AM, Kris MG, Scher HI, Hudis CA, Sabbatini P, Rogak L, Bennett AV, Dueck AC, Atkinson TM, Chou JF, Dulko D, Sit L, Barz A, Novotny P, Fruscione M, Sloan JA, Schrag D. Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: A randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016 Feb 20;34(6):557–565. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0830.
    1. Basch E, Deal AM, Dueck AC, Scher HI, Kris MG, Hudis C, Schrag D. Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. JAMA. 2017 Jul 11;318(2):197–198. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.7156.
    1. Denis F, Lethrosne C, Pourel N, Molinier O, Pointreau Y, Domont J, Bourgeois H, Senellart H, Trémolières P, Lizée T, Bennouna J, Urban T, El Khouri C, Charron A, Septans A, Balavoine M, Landry S, Solal-Céligny P, Letellier C. Randomized trial comparing a web-mediated follow-up with routine surveillance in lung cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017 Sep 01;109(9):1. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djx029.
    1. Denis F, Basch E, Septans A, Bennouna J, Urban T, Dueck AC, Letellier C. Two-year survival comparing web-based symptom monitoring vs routine surveillance following treatment for lung cancer. JAMA. 2019 Jan 22;321(3):306–307. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.18085.
    1. Bakitas MA, Tosteson TD, Li Z, Lyons KD, Hull JG, Li Z, Dionne-Odom JN, Frost J, Dragnev KH, Hegel MT, Azuero A, Ahles TA. Early versus delayed initiation of concurrent palliative oncology care: Patient outcomes in the ENABLE III randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2015 May 01;33(13):1438–1445. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.58.6362.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. London, UK: SAGE Publishing; 2013. Mar,
    1. Cresswell J, Poth C. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing; 2018.
    1. Haanen J, Carbonnel F, Robert C, Kerr K, Peters S, Larkin J, Jordan K, ESMO Guidelines Committee Management of toxicities from immunotherapy: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2017 Jul 01;28(suppl_4):iv119–iv142. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx225.
    1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) for Supportive Care: Cancer-Related Fatigue. 2020. [2020-12-06].
    1. Absolom K, Holch P, Warrington L, Samy F, Hulme C, Hewison J, Morris C, Bamforth L, Conner M, Brown J, Velikova G, eRAPID Systemic Treatment Work Group Electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID): A randomised controlled trial in systemic cancer treatment. BMC Cancer. 2017 May 08;17(1):318. doi: 10.1186/s12885-017-3303-8.
    1. Gagnon MP, Orruño E, Asua J, Abdeljelil AB, Emparanza J. Using a modified technology acceptance model to evaluate healthcare professionals' adoption of a new telemonitoring system. Telemed J E Health. 2012;18(1):54–59. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2011.0066.
    1. Davis FD. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 1989 Sep;13(3):319–340. doi: 10.2307/249008.
    1. Rahimi B, Nadri H, Lotfnezhad Afshar H, Timpka T. A systematic review of the technology acceptance model in health informatics. Appl Clin Inform. 2018 Jul;9(3):604–634. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1668091.
    1. Holden RJ, Karsh B. The technology acceptance model: Its past and its future in health care. J Biomed Inform. 2010 Feb;43(1):159–172. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002.
    1. Harst L, Lantzsch H, Scheibe M. Theories predicting end-user acceptance of telemedicine use: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019 May 21;21(5):e13117. doi: 10.2196/13117.
    1. Garavand A, Mohseni M, Asadi H, Etemadi M, Moradi-Joo M, Moosavi A. Factors influencing the adoption of health information technologies: A systematic review. Electron Physician. 2016 Aug;8(8):2713–2718. doi: 10.19082/2713.
    1. Jacob C, Sanchez-Vazquez A, Ivory C. Understanding clinicians' adoption of mobile health tools: A qualitative review of the most used frameworks. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Jul 06;8(7):e18072. doi: 10.2196/18072.
    1. Bidmead E, Marshall A. A case study of stakeholder perceptions of patient held records: The Patients Know Best (PKB) solution. Digit Health. 2016;2:e18072. doi: 10.1177/2055207616668431.
    1. Bishop TF, Press MJ, Mendelsohn JL, Casalino LP. Electronic communication improves access, but barriers to its widespread adoption remain. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013 Aug;32(8):1361–1367. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1151.
    1. Chung C, Cook J, Bales E, Zia J, Munson SA. More than telemonitoring: Health provider use and nonuse of life-log data in irritable bowel syndrome and weight management. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Aug 21;17(8):e203. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4364.
    1. Putzer GJ, Park Y. Are physicians likely to adopt emerging mobile technologies? Attitudes and innovation factors affecting smartphone use in the Southeastern United States. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2012;9:1b.
    1. Anderson K, Francis T, Ibanez-Carrasco F, Globerman J. Physician's perceptions of telemedicine in HIV care provision: A cross-sectional web-based survey. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2017 May 30;3(2):e31. doi: 10.2196/publichealth.6896.
    1. de Souza CHA, Morbeck RA, Steinman M, Hors CP, Bracco MM, Kozasa EH, Leão ER. Barriers and benefits in telemedicine arising between a high-technology hospital service provider and remote public healthcare units: A qualitative study in Brazil. Telemed J E Health. 2017 Jun;23(6):527–532. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2016.0158.
    1. Esterle L, Mathieu-Fritz A. Teleconsultation in geriatrics: Impact on professional practice. Int J Med Inform. 2013 Aug;82(8):684–695. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.04.006.
    1. Hickson R, Talbert J, Thornbury WC, Perin NR, Goodin AJ. Online medical care: The current state of "eVisits" in acute primary care delivery. Telemed J E Health. 2015 Feb;21(2):90–96. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2014.0022.
    1. Vest BM, Hall VM, Kahn LS, Heider AR, Maloney N, Singh R. Nurse perspectives on the implementation of routine telemonitoring for high-risk diabetes patients in a primary care setting. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2017 Jan;18(1):3–13. doi: 10.1017/S1463423616000190.
    1. Catan G, Espanha R, Mendes RV, Toren O, Chinitz D. Health information technology implementation - Impacts and policy considerations: A comparison between Israel and Portugal. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2015;4:41. doi: 10.1186/s13584-015-0040-9.
    1. Cox A, Illsley M, Knibb W, Lucas C, O'Driscoll M, Potter C, Flowerday A, Faithfull S. The acceptability of e-technology to monitor and assess patient symptoms following palliative radiotherapy for lung cancer. Palliat Med. 2011 Oct;25(7):675–681. doi: 10.1177/0269216311399489.
    1. L'Esperance ST, Perry DJ. Assessing advantages and barriers to telemedicine adoption in the practice setting: A MyCareTeam(TM) exemplar. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2016 Jun;28(6):311–319. doi: 10.1002/2327-6924.12280.
    1. MacNeill V, Sanders C, Fitzpatrick R, Hendy J, Barlow J, Knapp M, Rogers A, Bardsley M, Newman SP. Experiences of front-line health professionals in the delivery of telehealth: A qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2014 Jul;64(624):e401–e407. doi: 10.3399/bjgp14X680485.
    1. Mileski M, Kruse CS, Catalani J, Haderer T. Adopting telemedicine for the self-management of hypertension: Systematic review. JMIR Med Inform. 2017 Oct 24;5(4):e41. doi: 10.2196/medinform.6603.
    1. Odeh B, Kayyali R, Nabhani-Gebara S, Philip N. Implementing a telehealth service: Nurses' perceptions and experiences. Br J Nurs. 2014;23(21):1133–1137. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2014.23.21.1133.
    1. Schneider T, Panzera AD, Martinasek M, McDermott R, Couluris M, Lindenberger J, Bryant C. Physicians' perceptions of mobile technology for enhancing asthma care for youth. J Child Health Care. 2016 Jun;20(2):153–163. doi: 10.1177/1367493514556555.
    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):212–220. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocv052.
    1. Ariens LF, Schussler-Raymakers FM, Frima C, Flinterman A, Hamminga E, Arents BW, Bruijnzeel-Koomen CA, de Bruin-Weller MS, van Os-Medendorp H. Barriers and facilitators to eHealth use in daily practice: Perspectives of patients and professionals in dermatology. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Sep 05;19(9):e300. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7512.
    1. Duhm J, Fleischmann R, Schmidt S, Hupperts H, Brandt SA. Mobile electronic medical records promote workflow: Physicians' perspective from a survey. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Jun 06;4(2):e70. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.5464.
    1. Ehrler F, Ducloux P, Wu DTY, Lovis C, Blondon K. Acceptance of a mobile application supporting nurses workflow at patient bedside: Results from a pilot study. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2018;247:506–510.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006 Jan;3(2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. What can "thematic analysis" offer health and wellbeing researchers? Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2014;9:26152. doi: 10.3402/qhw.v9.26152.
    1. Riad Mousa Jaradat MI, Moh'd Ali Smadi Z. Applying the technology acceptance model to the introduction of mobile healthcare information systems. Int J Behav Healthc Res. 2013 Jan;4(2):123–143. doi: 10.1504/ijbhr.2013.057363.
    1. Thompson D, Callender C, Gonynor C, Cullen KW, Redondo MJ, Butler A, Anderson BJ. Using relational agents to promote family communication around type 1 diabetes self-management in the diabetes family teamwork online intervention: Longitudinal pilot study. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Sep 13;21(9):e15318. doi: 10.2196/15318.
    1. Maguire R, Ream E, Richardson A, Connaghan J, Johnston B, Kotronoulas G, Pedersen V, McPhelim J, Pattison N, Smith A, Webster L, Taylor A, Kearney N. Development of a novel remote patient monitoring system: The advanced symptom management system for radiotherapy to improve the symptom experience of patients with lung cancer receiving radiotherapy. Cancer Nurs. 2015;38(2):E37–E47. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000150.
    1. Howell D, Molloy S, Wilkinson K, Green E, Orchard K, Wang K, Liberty J. Patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer clinical practice: A scoping review of use, impact on health outcomes, and implementation factors. Ann Oncol. 2015 Sep;26(9):1846–1858. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv181.
    1. Hibbard JH, Mahoney E, Sonet E. Does patient activation level affect the cancer patient journey? Patient Educ Couns. 2017 Jul;100(7):1276–1279. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.03.019.
    1. Papadopoulou C, Kotronoulas G, Schneider A, Miller MI, McBride J, Polly Z, Bettles S, Whitehouse A, McCann L, Kearney N, Maguire R. Patient-reported self-efficacy, anxiety, and health-related quality of life during chemotherapy: Results from a longitudinal study. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2017 Jan 01;44(1):127–136. doi: 10.1188/17.ONF.127-136.
    1. Jacob C, Sanchez-Vazquez A, Ivory C. Clinicians' role in the adoption of an oncology decision support app in Europe and its implications for organizational practices: Qualitative case study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 May 03;7(5):e13555. doi: 10.2196/13555.
    1. Mueller KJ, Potter AJ, MacKinney AC, Ward MM. Lessons from tele-emergency: Improving care quality and health outcomes by expanding support for rural care systems. Health Aff (Millwood) 2014 Feb;33(2):228–234. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.1016.
    1. Ruiz Morilla MD, Sans M, Casasa A, Giménez N. Implementing technology in healthcare: Insights from physicians. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 Jun 27;17(1):92. doi: 10.1186/s12911-017-0489-2.
    1. Jacob C, Sanchez-Vazquez A, Ivory C. Social, organizational, and technological factors impacting clinicians' adoption of mobile health tools: Systematic literature review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Feb 20;8(2):e15935. doi: 10.2196/15935.
    1. Morrow S, Daines L, Wiener-Ogilvie S, Steed L, McKee L, Caress A, Taylor SJC, Pinnock H. Exploring the perspectives of clinical professionals and support staff on implementing supported self-management for asthma in UK general practice: An IMPART qualitative study. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2017 Jul 18;27(1):45. doi: 10.1038/s41533-017-0041-y. doi: 10.1038/s41533-017-0041-y.
    1. Öberg U, Orre CJ, Isaksson U, Schimmer R, Larsson H, Hörnsten Å. Swedish primary healthcare nurses' perceptions of using digital eHealth services in support of patient self-management. Scand J Caring Sci. 2018 Jun;32(2):961–970. doi: 10.1111/scs.12534.
    1. Chan M, Ang E, Duong MC, Chow YL. An online symptom care and management system to monitor and support patients receiving chemotherapy: A pilot study. Int J Nurs Pract. 2013 Feb;19 Suppl 1:14–18. doi: 10.1111/ijn.12020.
    1. Peltola MK, Lehikoinen JS, Sippola LT, Saarilahti K, Mäkitie AA. A novel digital patient-reported outcome platform for head and neck oncology patients-A pilot study. Clin Med Insights Ear Nose Throat. 2016;9:1–6. doi: 10.4137/CMENT.S40219.
    1. Tran C, Dicker A, Leiby B, Gressen E, Williams N, Jim H. Utilizing digital health to collect electronic patient-reported outcomes in prostate cancer: Single-arm pilot trial. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Mar 25;22(3):e12689. doi: 10.2196/12689.
    1. de Jong CC, Ros WJ, Schrijvers G. The effects on health behavior and health outcomes of internet-based asynchronous communication between health providers and patients with a chronic condition: A systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2014 Jan 16;16(1):e19. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3000.
    1. Brouwer W, Kroeze W, Crutzen R, de Nooijer J, de Vries NK, Brug J, Oenema A. Which intervention characteristics are related to more exposure to internet-delivered healthy lifestyle promotion interventions? A systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2011 Jan 06;13(1):e2. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1639.
    1. Stellefson M, Chaney B, Barry AE, Chavarria E, Tennant B, Walsh-Childers K, Sriram PS, Zagora J. Web 2.0 chronic disease self-management for older adults: A systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Feb 14;15(2):e35. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2439.
    1. Cushing CC, Steele RG. A meta-analytic review of eHealth interventions for pediatric health promoting and maintaining behaviors. J Pediatr Psychol. 2010 Oct;35(9):937–949. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsq023.
    1. McCorkle R, Ercolano E, Lazenby M, Schulman-Green D, Schilling LS, Lorig K, Wagner EH. Self-management: Enabling and empowering patients living with cancer as a chronic illness. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(1):50–62. doi: 10.3322/caac.20093. doi: 10.3322/caac.20093.
    1. Montalban X, Mulero P, Midaglia L, Graves J, Hauser S, Julian L, Baker M, Schadrack J, Gossens C, Scotland A, Lipsmeier F, Pointeau G, Bernasconi C, Belachew S, Lindemann M. FLOODLIGHT: Remote self-monitoring is accepted by patients and provides meaningful, continuous sensor-based outcomes consistent with and augmenting conventional in-clinic measures. Neurology. 2018 Apr;90(15 Supplement):P4.382.
    1. Montalban X, Mulero P, Midaglia L, Graves J, Hauser S, Julian L, Baker M, Schadrack J, Gossens C, Scotland A, Lipsmeier F, Pointeau G, Bernasconi C, Belachew S, Lindemann M. FLOODLIGHT: Smartphone-based self-monitoring is accepted by patients and provides meaningful, continuous digital outcomes augmenting conventional in-clinic multiple sclerosis measures. Neurology. 2019;92(15 Supplement):P3.2-024.
    1. Midaglia L, Mulero P, Montalban X, Graves J, Hauser SL, Julian L, Baker M, Schadrack J, Gossens C, Scotland A, Lipsmeier F, van Beek J, Bernasconi C, Belachew S, Lindemann M. Adherence and satisfaction of smartphone- and smartwatch-based remote active testing and passive monitoring in people with multiple sclerosis: Nonrandomized interventional feasibility study. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Aug 30;21(8):e14863. doi: 10.2196/14863.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera