A qualitative study of Telehealth patient information leaflets (TILs) : are we giving patients enough information?

BACKGROUND: The provision of patient information leaflets regarding telehealth has been perceived by potential consumers as a strategy to promote awareness and adoption of telehealth services. However, such leaflets need to be designed carefully if adoption and awareness among potential users is to be promoted. Therefore, the aims of this study were: first, to see how telehealth was portrayed in some of the existing telehealth leaflets (THLs). Second, to explore patients' perceptions of the existing THLs and their engagement with the concept and how THLs can be optimised. METHODS: A two-step approach was employed to address the aims of this study. The first phase involved the use of discourse analysis to compare 12 electronically and publically available THLs, with the existing THL guidance "Involve Yorkshire and Humber". The second phase involved conducting 14 semi-structured interviews with potential telehealth users/patients to gauge their perception and engagement with the concept, using the two leaflets that were mostly matching with the guidance used. Six interviews were audio-recorded and eight had detailed jotted notes. The interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed to identify key themes. RESULTS: The discourse analysis showed certain gaps and variations within the screened leaflets when addressing the following aspects: cost of the telehealth service, confidentiality, patients' choices in addition to equipment use and technical support. Analysis of the interviews revealed patients' need for having clear and sufficient information about the telehealth service within the THLs; in addition to, patients' preference for the use of simpler terminologies for telehealth description and the provision of clear simple texts with pictorial presentations. The interviews also revealed certain limitations against adoption of telehealth by the participants, such as: lack of privacy and confidentiality of information, fear of technology breakdown and equipment failure, loss of face-to-face contact with healthcare professionals and being too dependent on the telehealth service. CONCLUSION: The current study showed a great variation among the screened THLs and highlighted certain gaps within the content and presentation of these leaflets. However, the study also highlighted certain key issues to be considered when designing THLs in the future to enhance telehealth uptake and use by patients

Home Telehealth Uptake and Continued Use Among Heart Failure and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients: a Systematic Review

Background Home telehealth has the potential to benefit heart failure (HF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, however large-scale deployment is yet to be achieved. Purpose The aim of this review was to assess levels of uptake of home telehealth by patients with HF and COPD and the factors that determine whether patients do or do not accept and continue to use telehealth. Methods This research performs a narrative synthesis of the results from included studies. Results Thirty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies that reported rates of refusal and/or withdrawal found that almost one third of patients who were offered telehealth refused and one fifth of participants who did accept later abandoned telehealth. Seven barriers to, and nine facilitators of, home telehealth use were identified. Conclusions Research reports need to provide more details regarding telehealth refusal and abandonment, in order to understand the reasons why patients decide not to use telehealth

Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated review and user survey.

Background A COS represents an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative aims to collate and stimulate the development and application of COS, by including data on relevant studies within a publically available internet-based resource. In recent years, there has been an interest in increasing the development of COS. Therefore, this study aimed to provide an update of a previous review, and examine the quality of development of COS. A further aim was to understand the reasons why individuals are searching the COMET database. Methods A multi-faceted search strategy was followed, in order to identify studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in clinical trials of a specific condition. Additionally, a pop up survey was added to the COMET website, to ascertain why people were searching the COMET database. Results Thirty-two reports relating to 29 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. There has been an improvement in the description of the scope of a COS and an increase in the proportion of studies using literature/systematic reviews and the Delphi technique. Clinical experts continue to be the most common group involved in developing COS, however patient and public involvement has increased. The pop-up survey revealed the most common reasons for visiting the COMET website to be thinking about developing a COS and planning a clinical trial. Conclusions This update demonstrates that recent studies appear to have adopted a more structured approach towards COS development and public representation has increased. However, there remains a need for developers to adequately describe details about the scope of COS, and for greater public engagement. The COMET database appears to be a useful resource for both COS developers and users of COS.</p

Review finds core outcome set uptake in new studies and systematic reviews needs improvement.

ObjectiveTo review evidence about the uptake of core outcome sets (COS). A COS is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials in a specific area of health or health care.Study design and settingThis article provides an analysis of what is known about the uptake of COS in research. Similarities between COS and outcomes recommended by stakeholders in the evidence ecosystem is reviewed, and actions taken by them to facilitate COS uptake described.ResultsCOS uptake is low in most research areas. Common facilitators relate to trialist awareness and understanding. Common barriers were not including in the development process all specialties who might use the COS, and the lack of recommendations for how to measure the outcomes. Increasingly, COS developers are considering strategies for promoting uptake earlier in the process, including actions beyond traditional dissemination approaches. Overlap between COS and outcomes in regulatory documents and health technology assessments is good. An increasing number and variety of organisations are recommending COS be considered.ConclusionWe suggest actions for various stakeholders for improving COS uptake. Research is needed to assess the impact of these actions to identify effective evidence-based strategies