Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Add filters

Document Type
Clinical aspect
Year range
J Med Internet Res ; 23(9): e28869, 2021 09 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1443965


BACKGROUND: Oncological health care services are challenged by the increasing number of cancer survivors, long-term follow-up care, and fragmentation of care. Digital care platforms are potential tools to deliver affordable, patient-centered oncological care. Previous reviews evaluated only one feature of a digital care platform or did not evaluate the effect on enhancement of information, self-efficacy, continuity of care, or patient- and health care provider-reported experiences. Additionally, they have not focused on the barriers and facilitators for implementation of a digital care platform in oncological care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to collect the best available evidence of the effect of a digital care platform on quality of care parameters such as enhancement of available information, self-efficacy, continuity of care, and patient- and health care provider-reported experiences. Additionally, barriers and facilitators for implementation of digital care platforms were analyzed. METHODS: The PubMed (Medline), Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for the period from January 2000 to May 2020 for studies assessing the effect of a digital care platform on the predefined outcome parameters in oncological patients and studies describing barriers and facilitators for implementation. Synthesis of the results was performed qualitatively. Barriers and facilitators were categorized according to the framework of Grol and Wensing. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for critical appraisal of the studies. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included for final analysis, comprising 8 clinical studies on the effectiveness of the digital care platform and 13 studies describing barriers and facilitators. Usage of a digital care platform appeared to enhance the availability of information and self-efficacy. There were no data available on the effect of a digital care platform on the continuity of care. However, based on focus group interviews, digital care platforms could potentially improve continuity of care by optimizing the exchange of patient information across institutes. Patient-reported experiences such as satisfaction with the platform were considerably positive. Most barriers for implementation were identified at the professional level, such as the concern for increased workload and unattended release of medical information to patients. Most facilitators were found at the patient and innovation levels, such as improved patient-doctor communication and patient empowerment. There were few barriers and facilitators mentioned at the economic and political levels. CONCLUSIONS: The use of digital care platforms is associated with better quality of care through enhancement of availability of information and increased self-efficacy for oncological patients. The numerous facilitators identified at the patient level illustrate that patients are positive toward a digital care platform. However, despite these favorable results, robust evidence concerning the effectiveness of digital care platforms, especially from high-quality studies, is still lacking. Future studies should therefore aim to further investigate the effectiveness of digital care platforms, and the barriers and facilitators to their implementation at the economic and political levels.

Health Personnel , Patient Participation , Communication , Humans , Qualitative Research , Quality of Health Care
J Med Internet Res ; 22(5): e17791, 2020 05 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-97669


BACKGROUND: Research on the use of video-mediated technology for medical consultations is increasing rapidly. Most research in this area is based on questionnaires and focuses on long-term conditions. The few studies that have focused on physical examinations in video consultations indicated that it poses challenges for the participants. The specific activity of wound assessment through video in postsurgery consultations has not yet been studied. Furthermore, a comparative analysis of face-to-face and video settings on the moment-to-moment organization of such an activity is original. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of video technology on the procedure of postsurgery wound assessment and its limits. METHODS: We recorded 22 postoperative video consultations and 17 postoperative face-to-face consultations. The primary purpose of the consultation was to inform the patient about the final pathology results of the resected specimen, and the secondary purpose was to check on the patient's recovery, including an assessment of the closed wound. The recordings were transcribed in detail and analyzed using methods of conversation analysis. RESULTS: The way that an assessment of the wound is established in video consultations differs from the procedure in face-to-face consultations. In the consultation room, wound assessments overwhelmingly (n=15/17) involve wound showings in the context of surgeons reporting their observations formatted with evidentials ("looks neat") and subsequently assessing what these observations imply or what could be concluded from them. In contrast, wound assessments in video consultations do not tend to involve showing the wound (n=3/22) and, given the technological restrictions, do not involve palpation. Rather, the surgeon invites the patient to assess the wound, which opens up a sequence of patient and physician assessments where diagnostic criteria such as redness or swollenness are made explicit. In contrast to observations in regular consultations, these assessments are characterized by epistemic markers of uncertainty ("I think," "sounds...good") and evidentials are absent. Even in cases of a potential wound problem, the surgeon may rely on questioning the patient rather than requesting a showing. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of video technology on postoperative consultations is that a conclusive wound assessment is arrived at in a different way when compared to face-to-face consultations. In video consultations, physicians enquire and patients provide their own observations, which serve as the basis for the assessment. This means that, in video consultations, patients have a fundamentally different role. These talking-based assessments are effective unless, in cases of a potential problem, patient answers seem insufficient and a showing might be beneficial.

Videotape Recording/methods , Wounds and Injuries/therapy , Communication , Female , Humans , Male , Postoperative Period , Referral and Consultation