Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Patient Digital Health Technologies to Support Primary Care Across Clinical Contexts: Survey of Primary Care Providers, Behavioral Health Consultants, and Nurses.
Zaslavsky, Oleg; Chu, Frances; Renn, Brenna N.
  • Zaslavsky O; School of Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
  • Chu F; School of Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
  • Renn BN; Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, United States.
JMIR Form Res ; 6(2): e32664, 2022 Feb 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1714907
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

The acceptance of digital health technologies to support patient care for various clinical conditions among primary care providers and staff has not been explored.

OBJECTIVE:

The purpose of this study was to explore the extent of potential differences between major groups of providers and staff in primary care, including behavioral health consultants (BHCs; eg, psychologists, social workers, and counselors), primary care providers (PCPs; eg, physicians and nurse practitioners), and nurses (registered nurses and licensed practical nurses) in the acceptance of various health technologies (ie, mobile apps, wearables, live video, phone, email, instant chats, text messages, social media, and patient portals) to support patient care across a variety of clinical situations.

METHODS:

We surveyed 151 providers (51 BHCs, 52 PCPs, and 48 nurses) embedded in primary care clinics across the United States who volunteered to respond to a web-based survey distributed in December 2020 by a large health care market research company. Respondents indicated the technologies they consider appropriate to support patients' health care needs across the following clinical contexts acute and chronic disease, medication management, health-promoting behaviors, sleep, substance use, and common and serious mental health conditions. We used descriptive statistics to summarize the distribution of demographic characteristics by provider type. We used contingency tables to compile summaries of the proportion of provider types endorsing each technology within and across clinical contexts. This study was exploratory in nature, with the intent to inform future research.

RESULTS:

Most of the respondents were from urban and suburban settings (125/151, 82.8%), with 12.6% (n=19) practicing in rural or frontier settings and 4.6% (n=7) practicing in rural-serving clinics. Respondents were dispersed across the United States, including the Northeast (31/151, 20.5%), Midwest (n=32, 21.2%), South (n=49, 32.5%), and West (n=39, 25.8%). The highest acceptance for technologies across clinical contexts was among BHCs (32/51, 63%) and PCPs (30/52, 58%) for live video and among nurses for mobile apps (30/48, 63%). A higher percentage of nurses accepted all other technologies relative to BHCs and PCPs. Similarly, relative to other groups, PCPs indicated lower levels of acceptance. Within clinical contexts, the highest acceptance rates were reported among 80% (41/51) of BHCs and 69% (36/52) of PCPs endorsing live video for common mental health conditions and 75% (36/48) of nurses endorsing mobile apps for health-promoting behaviors. The lowest acceptance across providers was for social media in the context of medication management (9.3% [14/151] endorsement across provider type).

CONCLUSIONS:

The survey suggests potential differences in the way primary care clinicians and staff envision using technologies to support patient care. Future work must attend to reasons for differences in the acceptance of various technologies across providers and clinical contexts. Such an understanding will help inform appropriate implementation strategies to increase acceptability and gain greater adoption of appropriate technologies across conditions and patient populations.
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials Language: English Journal: JMIR Form Res Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: 32664

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials Language: English Journal: JMIR Form Res Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: 32664