Implementation of ask-advise-connect for smoking cessation in Dutch general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods evaluation using the CFIR framework.

BACKGROUND: The Ask-Advise-Connect (AAC) approach can help primary care providers to increase the number of people who attempt to quit smoking and enrol into cessation counselling. We implemented AAC in Dutch general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study we describe how AAC was received in Dutch general practice and assess which factors played a role in the implementation. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used to evaluate the implementation of AAC. Implementation took place between late 2020 and early 2022 among 106 Dutch primary care providers (general practitioners (GPs), practice nurses and doctor's assistants). Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through four online questionnaires. A descriptive analysis was conducted on the quantitative data. The qualitative data (consisting of answers to open-ended questions) were inductively analysed using axial codes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to structure and interpret findings. RESULTS: During the study, most participants felt motivated (84-92%) and able (80-94%) to apply AAC. At the end of the study, most participants reported that the AAC approach is easy to apply (89%) and provides advantages (74%). Routine implementation of the approach was, however, experienced to be difficult. More GPs (30-48%) experienced barriers in the implementation compared to practice nurses and doctor's assistants (7-9%). The qualitative analysis showed that especially external factors, such as a lack of time or priority to discuss smoking due to the COVID-19 pandemic, negatively influenced implementation of AAC. CONCLUSIONS: Although AAC was mostly positively received in Dutch general practice, implementation turned out to be challenging, especially for GPs. Lack of time to discuss smoking was a major barrier in the implementation. Future efforts should focus on providing additional implementation support to GPs, for example with the use of e-health.

What Makes a Quality Health App-Developing a Global Research-Based Health App Quality Assessment Framework for CEN-ISO/TS 82304-2: Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: The lack of an international standard for assessing and communicating health app quality and the lack of consensus about what makes a high-quality health app negatively affect the uptake of such apps. At the request of the European Commission, the international Standard Development Organizations (SDOs), European Committee for Standardization, International Organization for Standardization, and International Electrotechnical Commission have joined forces to develop a technical specification (TS) for assessing the quality and reliability of health and wellness apps. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to create a useful, globally applicable, trustworthy, and usable framework to assess health app quality. METHODS: A 2-round Delphi technique with 83 experts from 6 continents (predominantly Europe) participating in one (n=42, 51%) or both (n=41, 49%) rounds was used to achieve consensus on a framework for assessing health app quality. Aims included identifying the maximum 100 requirement questions for the uptake of apps that do or do not qualify as medical devices. The draft assessment framework was built on 26 existing frameworks, the principles of stringent legislation, and input from 20 core experts. A follow-up survey with 28 respondents informed a scoring mechanism for the questions. After subsequent alignment with related standards, the quality assessment framework was tested and fine-tuned with manufacturers of 11 COVID-19 symptom apps. National mirror committees from the 52 countries that participated in the SDO technical committees were invited to comment on 4 working drafts and subsequently vote on the TS. RESULTS: The final quality assessment framework includes 81 questions, 67 (83%) of which impact the scores of 4 overarching quality aspects. After testing with people with low health literacy, these aspects were phrased as "Healthy and safe," "Easy to use," "Secure data," and "Robust build." The scoring mechanism enables communication of the quality assessment results in a health app quality score and label, alongside a detailed report. Unstructured interviews with stakeholders revealed that evidence and third-party assessment are needed for health app uptake. The manufacturers considered the time needed to complete the assessment and gather evidence (2-4 days) acceptable. Publication of CEN-ISO/TS 82304-2:2021 Health software - Part 2: Health and wellness apps - Quality and reliability was approved in May 2021 in a nearly unanimous vote by 34 national SDOs, including 6 of the 10 most populous countries worldwide. CONCLUSIONS: A useful and usable international standard for health app quality assessment was developed. Its quality, approval rate, and early use provide proof of its potential to become the trusted, commonly used global framework. The framework will help manufacturers enhance and efficiently demonstrate the quality of health apps, consumers, and health care professionals to make informed decisions on health apps. It will also help insurers to make reimbursement decisions on health apps.

The effect of an integrated palliative care intervention on quality of life and acute healthcare use in patients with COPD: Results of the COMPASSION cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: COPD causes high morbidity and mortality, emphasizing the need for palliative care. AIM: To assess the effectiveness of palliative care in patients with COPD. DESIGN: Cluster randomized controlled trial (COMPASSION study; Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NL7644, 07-04-2019). Healthcare providers within the intervention group were trained to implement palliative care components into routine COPD care. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline, after 3 and 6 months; medical records were assessed after 12 months. The primary outcome was quality of life (FACIT-Pal). Secondary outcomes were anxiety, depression, spiritual well-being, satisfaction with care, acute healthcare use, documentation of life-sustaining treatment preferences and place of death. Generalized linear mixed modelling was used for analyses. SETTING: Eight hospital regions in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Patients hospitalized for an acute exacerbation of COPD and positive ProPal-COPD score. RESULTS: Of 222 patients included, 106 responded to the questionnaire at 6 months. Thirty-six of 98 intervention patients (36.7%) received the intervention. Intention-to-treat-analysis showed no effect on the primary outcome (adjusted difference: 1.09; 95% confidence interval: -5.44 to 7.60). In the intervention group, fewer intensive care admissions for COPD took place (adjusted odds ratio: 0.21; 95% confidence interval: 0.03-0.81) and strong indications were found for fewer hospitalizations (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.46-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that palliative care improves quality of life in patients with COPD. However, it can potentially reduce acute healthcare use. The consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic led to suboptimal implementation and insufficient power, and may have affected some of our findings.

The Usability of Homelab, a Digital Self-service at a Dutch General Practice, for Diagnostic Tests: Pilot Study With a Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: eHealth potentially can make health care more accessible and efficient and help reduce the workload in primary health care. Homelab is an eHealth tool implemented in a general practice environment, and it offers relatively simple laboratory diagnostic tests without the referral of the general practitioner. After logging in this eHealth tool, patients select and order a diagnostic test based on their symptoms. The test results are presented online to the general practitioner and the patient. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the use, usability, and user characteristics of Homelab. Further, it aims to evaluate whether Homelab replaces an appointment with the general practitioner. METHODS: Homelab has been implemented since May 2021 as a pilot in a Dutch general practice. The number of requests and the ordered diagnostic packages are monitored. After using Homelab, patients are invited to complete a short questionnaire. The questionnaire contains demographic questions and assesses usability using the System Usability Scale (10 items). In addition, questions about requesting an appointment with the general practitioner without Homelab are included. All data were anonymous. RESULTS: The questionnaire was filled by 74 individual patients. The mean age of the patients was 40.33 (SD 12.11) years, and half of them were females (39/74, 53%). The majority of the patients were highly educated (56/74, 76%) and employed (53/74, 72%). Approximately 81% (60/74) of the patients reported that they would use Homelab again in the future and 66% (49/74) reported that they would have gone to the general practitioner if they had not used Homelab. The usability of Homelab was perceived higher by the younger age group (mean 73.96, SD 14.74) than by the older age group (mean 61.59, SD 14.37). In total, 106 test packages were ordered over 1 year, and the most requested diagnostic package was "Am I still healthy? I want to do my annual health checkup." Homelab was used the most during the months of the COVID-19 lockdown. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Homelab, a digital self-service for ordering diagnostic tests, was monitored in this study, and its usability was perceived as above average. Our findings showed that patients are willing to use Homelab in the future and they would use it most of the time as a replacement for regular consultations. Homelab offers opportunities for more accessible and efficient health care for both the patient and the general practitioner.

Perceived barriers and facilitators of structural reimbursement for Remote Patient Monitoring, an exploratory qualitative study

Objective Structural reimbursement can be an important factor for large-scale implementing and upscaling of remote patient monitoring (RPM). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Dutch Healthcare Authority expanded regulations, creating novel opportunities to reimburse RPM. Despite these regulations, barriers to the reimbursement of RPM remain. This study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators of structural reimbursement of RPM in hospital care in the Netherlands and to propose actionable recommendations. Methods This is an exploratory qualitative study with relevant stakeholders in the Dutch purchasing market: the Dutch Healthcare Authority, health insurers, and healthcare providers. Semi-structured interviews were held between October and December of 2020. All interviews were conducted using a digital medium, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analyzed. Results Multiple perceived barriers were mentioned: wrong pocket problems (i.e. the entity that bears the costs of implementation does not receive the benefits), no uniform quality and outcome indicators, lack of willingness to redesign care pathways by providers, and difficulties implementing cross-sector models. Perceived facilitators included interdisciplinary cooperation and transparency, the use of alternative payment models, increase in the total number of patients per RPM project, and the optional reimbursement scheme. Conclusion Our interviews found barriers and facilitators concerning structural reimbursement of RPM in hospital settings in the Netherlands. Our results emphasize that the successful integration of structural reimbursement requires: 1) understanding the improvement potential of RPM by creating business cases, 2) co-creation (redesigning care paths) from the outset of an RPM project, 3) and allocating financial risk by providers and insurers. Public Interest Summary The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the strong potential of consultation and monitoring patients at a distance. Remote patient monitoring - the use of information technologies for monitoring patients at a distance - is seen as a potential solution to urgent challenges in the healthcare system. Nevertheless, embedding remote patient monitoring innovations into routine healthcare is often challenging, partly due to difficulties in reimbursing these initiatives. Barriers to reimbursing remote patient monitoring included zorganizational factors, no uniform quality and outcome indicators, and difficulties using different payment models. Perceived facilitators included an increase in the total number of patients per project, better interdisciplinary cooperation and transparency, and help from the Dutch Healthcare Authority. Introducing these insights into healthcare policy dialogues could support reimbursement of remote patient monitoring and stimulate the collaboration of healthcare stakeholders responsible for implementing and scaling up remote patient monitoring projects.

Implementation of a palliative care intervention for patients with COPD - a mixed methods process evaluation of the COMPASSION study.

OBJECTIVES: Little direction exists on how to effectively implement palliative care for patients with COPD. In the COMPASSION study, we developed, executed, and evaluated a multifaceted implementation strategy to improve the uptake of region-tailored palliative care intervention components into routine COPD care. We evaluated the implementation strategy and assessed the implementation process, barriers, and facilitators. METHODS: A mixed methods process evaluation was performed. Primary and secondary healthcare providers in four hospital regions in the Netherlands were trained. Patients identified during hospitalisation for an acute exacerbation received palliative care and were followed for a year. Various sources were used: process data, questionnaires including the End-of-life Professional Caregiver Survey (EPCS), medical records, monitoring meetings, and interviews. The Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to categorize implementation determinants. RESULTS: The training sessions with roleplay were positively evaluated and increased professionals' self-efficacy in providing palliative care statistically significantly. Of 98 patients identified, 44 (44.9%) received one or more palliative care conversations at the outpatient clinic. Having those conversations was highly valued by healthcare providers because it led to clarity and peace of mind for the patient and higher job satisfaction. Coordination and continuity remained suboptimal. Most important barriers to implementation were time constraints, the COVID-19 pandemic, and barriers related to transmural and interdisciplinary collaboration. Facilitators were the systematic screening of patients for palliative care needs, adapting to the patient's readiness, conducting palliative care conversations with a pulmonologist and a COPD nurse together, and meeting regularly with a small team led by a dedicated implementation leader. CONCLUSIONS: Providing integrated palliative care for patients with COPD is highly valued by healthcare providers but remains challenging. Our findings will guide future implementation efforts. Future research should focus on how to optimize transmural and interdisciplinary collaboration. Trial registration The COMPASSION study is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NL7644. Registration date: 07/04/2019.

COVID-box Experiences of Patients and Health Care Professionals (COVID-box Project): Single-Center, Retrospective, Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, several home monitoring programs have described the success of reducing hospital admissions, but only a few studies have investigated the experiences of patients and health care professionals. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to determine patients' and health care professionals' experiences and satisfaction with employing the COVID-box. METHODS: In this single-center, retrospective, observational study, patients and health care professionals were asked to anonymously fill out multiple-choice questionnaires with questions on a 5-point or 10-point Likert scale. The themes addressed by patients were the sense of reassurance and safety, experiences with teleconsultations, their appreciation for staying at home, and the instructions for using the COVID-box. The themes addressed by health care professionals who treated patients with the COVID-box were the characteristics of the COVID-box, the technical support service and general satisfaction, and their expectations and support for this telemonitoring concept. Scores were interpreted as insufficient (≤2 or ≤5, respectively), sufficient (3 or 6-7, respectively), or good (≥4 or ≥8, respectively) on a 5-point or 10-point Likert scale. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients and 25 health care professionals filled out the questionnaires. The median score was 4 (IQR 4-5) for the sense of safety, the appreciation for staying at home, and experiences with teleconsultations, with good scores from 76.5% (88/115), 86% (56/65), and 83.6% (92/110) of the patients, respectively. Further, 74.4% (87/117) of the patients scored the home monitoring program with a score of ≥8. Health care professionals scored the COVID-box with a minimum median score of 7 (IQR 7-10) on a 10-point scale for all domains (ie, the characteristics of the COVID-box and the technical support service and general satisfaction). For the sense of safety, user-friendliness, and additional value of the COVID-box, the median scores were 8 (IQR 8-10), 8 (IQR 7-9), and 10 (IQR 8-10), respectively, with good scores from 86% (19/22), 75% (15/20), and 96% (24/25) of the health care professionals, respectively. All health care professionals (25/25, 100%) gave a score of ≥8 for supporting this home monitoring concept, with a median score of 10 (IQR 10-10). CONCLUSIONS: The positive experiences and satisfaction of involved users are key factors for the successful implementation of a novel eHealth solution. In our study, patients, as well as health care professionals, were highly satisfied with the use of the home monitoring program-the COVID-box project. Remote home monitoring may be an effective approach in cases of increased demand for hospital care and high pressure on health care systems.

Optimizing the Acceptability, Adherence, and Inclusiveness of the COVID Radar Surveillance App: Qualitative Study Using Focus Groups, Thematic Content Analysis, and Usability Testing.

BACKGROUND: The COVID Radar app was developed as a population-based surveillance instrument to identify at-risk populations and regions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The app boasts of >8.5 million completed questionnaires, with >280,000 unique users. Although the COVID Radar app is a valid tool for population-level surveillance, high user engagement is critical to the success of the COVID Radar app in maintaining validity. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify optimization targets of the COVID Radar app to improve its acceptability, adherence, and inclusiveness. METHODS: The main component of the COVID Radar app is a self-report questionnaire that assesses COVID-19 symptoms and social distancing behaviors. A total of 3 qualitative substudies were conducted. First, 3 semistructured focus group interviews with end users (N=14) of the app were conducted to gather information on user experiences. The output was transcribed and thematically coded using the framework method. Second, a similar qualitative thematic analysis was conducted on 1080 end-user emails. Third, usability testing was conducted in one-on-one sessions with 4 individuals with low literacy levels. RESULTS: All 3 substudies identified optimization targets in terms of design and content. The results of substudy 1 showed that the participants generally evaluated the app positively. They reported the app to be user-friendly and were satisfied with its design and functionalities. Participants' main motivation to use the app was to contribute to science. Participants suggested adding motivational tools to stimulate user engagement. A larger national publicity campaign for the app was considered potentially helpful for increasing the user population. In-app updates informing users about the project and its outputs motivated users to continue using the app. Feedback on the self-report questionnaire, stemming from substudies 1 and 2, mostly concerned the content and phrasing of the questions. Furthermore, the section of the app allowing users to compare their symptoms and behaviors to those of their peers was found to be suboptimal because of difficulties in interpreting the figures presented in the app. Finally, the output of substudy 3 resulted in recommendations primarily related to simplification of the text to render it more accessible and comprehensible for individuals with low literacy levels. CONCLUSIONS: The convenience of app use, enabling personal adjustments of the app experience, and considering motivational factors for continued app use (ie, altruism and collectivism) were found to be crucial to procuring and maintaining a population of active users of the COVID Radar app. Further, there seems to be a need to increase the accessibility of public health tools for individuals with low literacy levels. These results can be used to improve the this and future public health apps and improve the representativeness of their user populations and user engagement, ultimately increasing the validity of the tools.

Online synchronous focus group interviews: Practical considerations

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a sudden shift was warranted from face-to-face to digital interviewing. This shift is in line with the existing trend of digitalization. However, limited literature is available on how to conduct focus group interviews online successfully. This research note provides practical guidelines, tips, and considerations for setting up and conducting online synchronous focus groups for eight relevant factors: preparation, the number of participants, the duration, a break, the usability of the online platform, the interaction between participants and researchers, support and roles of the research team, and privacy considerations. These guidelines were formulated based on the available literature and our own positive hands-on experiences. We consider online focus groups to be an excellent option when taking into account the considerations related to the eight factors.

Successes of and Lessons From the First Joint eHealth Program of the Dutch University Hospitals: Evaluation Study.

BACKGROUND: A total of 8 Dutch university hospitals are at the forefront of contributing meaningfully to a future-proof health care system. To stimulate nationwide collaboration and knowledge-sharing on the topic of evidence-based eHealth, the Dutch university hospitals joined forces from 2016 to 2019 with the first Citrien Fund (CF) program eHealth; 29 eHealth projects with various subjects and themes were selected, supported, and evaluated. To determine the accomplishment of the 10 deliverables for the CF program eHealth and to contribute to the theory and practice of formative evaluation of eHealth in general, a comprehensive evaluation was deemed essential. OBJECTIVE: The first aim of this study is to evaluate whether the 10 deliverables of the CF program eHealth were accomplished. The second aim is to evaluate the progress of the 29 eHealth projects to determine the barriers to and facilitators of the development of the CF program eHealth projects. METHODS: To achieve the first aim of this study, an evaluation study was carried out using an adapted version of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization framework. A mixed methods study, consisting of a 2-part questionnaire and semistructured interviews, was conducted to analyze the second aim of the study. RESULTS: The 10 deliverables of the CF program eHealth were successfully achieved. The program yielded 22 tangible eHealth solutions, and significant knowledge on the development and use of eHealth solutions. We have learned that the patient is enthusiastic about accessing and downloading their own medical data but the physicians are more cautious. It was not always possible to implement the Dutch set of standards for interoperability, owing to a lack of information technology (IT) capacities. In addition, more attention needed to be paid to patients with low eHealth skills, and education in such cases is important. The eHealth projects' progress aspects such as planning, IT services, and legal played an important role in the success of the 29 projects. The in-depth interviews illustrated that a novel eHealth solution should fulfill a need, that partners already having the knowledge and means to accelerate development should be involved, that clear communication with IT developers and other stakeholders is crucial, and that having a dedicated project leader with sufficient time is of utmost importance for the success of a project. CONCLUSIONS: The 8 Dutch university hospitals were able to collaborate successfully and stimulate through a bottom-up approach, nationwide eHealth development and knowledge-sharing. In total, 22 tangible eHealth solutions were developed, and significant eHealth knowledge about their development and use was shared. The eHealth projects' progress aspects such as planning, IT services, and legal played an important role in the successful progress of the projects and should therefore be closely monitored when developing novel eHealth solutions. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1016/j.ceh.2020.12.002.

COVID RADAR app: Description and validation of population surveillance of symptoms and behavior in relation to COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring of symptoms and behavior may enable prediction of emerging COVID-19 hotspots. The COVID Radar smartphone app, active in the Netherlands, allows users to self-report symptoms, social distancing behaviors, and COVID-19 status daily. The objective of this study is to describe the validation of the COVID Radar. METHODS: COVID Radar users are asked to complete a daily questionnaire consisting of 20 questions assessing their symptoms, social distancing behavior, and COVID-19 status. We describe the internal and external validation of symptoms, behavior, and both user-reported COVID-19 status and state-reported COVID-19 case numbers. RESULTS: Since April 2nd, 2020, over 6 million observations from over 250,000 users have been collected using the COVID Radar app. Almost 2,000 users reported having tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Amongst users testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, the proportion of observations reporting symptoms was higher than that of the cohort as a whole in the week prior to a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Likewise, users who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 showed above average risk social-distancing behavior. Per-capita user-reported SARS-CoV-2 positive tests closely matched government-reported per-capita case counts in provinces with high user engagement. DISCUSSION: The COVID Radar app allows voluntarily self-reporting of COVID-19 related symptoms and social distancing behaviors. Symptoms and risk behavior increase prior to a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and user-reported case counts match closely with nationally-reported case counts in regions with high user engagement. These results suggest the COVID Radar may be a valid instrument for future surveillance and potential predictive analytics to identify emerging hotspots.

Online Tool for the Assessment of the Burden of COVID-19 in Patients: Development Study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 has been felt worldwide, yet we are still unsure about its full impact. One of the gaps in our current knowledge relates to the long-term mental and physical impact of the infection on affected individuals. The COVID-19 pandemic hit the Netherlands at the end of February 2020, resulting in over 900,000 people testing positive for the virus, over 24,000 hospitalizations, and over 13,000 deaths by the end of January 2021. Although many patients recover from the acute phase of the disease, experience with other virus outbreaks has raised concerns regarding possible late sequelae of the infection. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop an online tool to assess the long-term burden of COVID-19 in patients. METHODS: In this paper, we describe the process of development, assessment, programming, implementation, and use of this new tool: the assessment of burden of COVID-19 (ABCoV) tool. This new tool is based on the well-validated assessment of burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease tool. RESULTS: As of January 2021, the new ABCoV tool has been used in an online patient platform by more than 2100 self-registered patients and another 400 patients in a hospital setting, resulting in over 2500 patients. These patients have submitted the ABCoV questionnaire 3926 times. Among the self-registered patients who agreed to have their data analyzed (n=1898), the number of females was high (n=1153, 60.7%), many were medically diagnosed with COVID-19 (n=892, 47.0%), and many were relatively young with only 7.4% (n=141) being older than 60 years. Of all patients that actually used the tool (n=1517), almost one-quarter (n=356, 23.5%) used the tool twice, and only a small group (n=76, 5.0%) used the tool 6 times. CONCLUSIONS: This new ABCoV tool has been broadly and repeatedly used, and may provide insight into the perceived burden of disease, provide direction for personalized aftercare for people post COVID-19, and help us to be prepared for possible future recurrences.

The impact of the involvement of a healthcare professional on the usage of an eHealth platform: a retrospective observational COPD study.

BACKGROUND: Ehealth platforms, since the outbreak of COVID-19 more important than ever, can support self-management in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The aim of this observational study is to explore the impact of healthcare professional involvement on the adherence of patients to an eHealth platform. We evaluated the usage of an eHealth platform by patients who used the platform individually compared with patients in a blended setting, where healthcare professionals were involved. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, log data from September 2011 until January 2018 were extracted from the eHealth platform Curavista. Patients with COPD who completed at least one Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) were included for analyses (n = 299). In 57% (n = 171) of the patients, the eHealth platform was used in a blended setting, either in hospital (n = 128) or primary care (n = 29). To compare usage of the platform between patients who used the platform independently or with a healthcare professional, we applied propensity score matching and performed adjusted Poisson regression analysis on CCQ-submission rate. RESULTS: Using the eHealth platform in a blended setting was associated with a 3.25 higher CCQ-submission rate compared to patients using the eHealth platform independently. Within the blended setting, the CCQ-submission rate was 1.83 higher in the hospital care group than in the primary care group. CONCLUSION: It is shown that COPD patients used the platform more frequently in a blended care setting compared to patients who used the eHealth platform independently, adjusted for age, sex and disease burden. Blended care seems essential for adherence to eHealth programs in COPD, which in turn may improve self-management.

Telemonitoring for Patients With COVID-19: Recommendations for Design and Implementation.

Despite significant efforts, the COVID-19 pandemic has put enormous pressure on health care systems around the world, threatening the quality of patient care. Telemonitoring offers the opportunity to carefully monitor patients with a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19 from home and allows for the timely identification of worsening symptoms. Additionally, it may decrease the number of hospital visits and admissions, thereby reducing the use of scarce resources, optimizing health care capacity, and minimizing the risk of viral transmission. In this paper, we present a COVID-19 telemonitoring care pathway developed at a tertiary care hospital in the Netherlands, which combined the monitoring of vital parameters with video consultations for adequate clinical assessment. Additionally, we report a series of medical, scientific, organizational, and ethical recommendations that may be used as a guide for the design and implementation of telemonitoring pathways for COVID-19 and other diseases worldwide.