Suitability of issuing sickness certifications in remote consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. A mixed method study of GPs' experiences.

OBJECTIVE: To explore Norwegian GPs' experiences with and perceived suitability of issuing sickness certifications in remote consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: We used a mixed methods research design. An online survey with 301 respondents was combined with qualitative interviews with ten GPs. SETTING: Norwegian general practice. RESULTS: Most GPs agreed it was difficult to assess a patient's ability to work without physical attendance for a first-time certification in remote consultations. However, extending a certification was considered less problematic. If physical examinations were required, the GPs would ask the patient to come to the office. The most suitable diagnoses for remote certification were respiratory infections and COVID-19-related diagnoses, as well as known chronic and long-term diseases. The GPs emphasized the importance of knowing both the patient and the medical problem. The GP-patient relationship could be affected by remote consultations, and there were mixed views on the impact. Many GPs found it easier to deny a request for a sickness certification in remote consultations. The GPs expressed concern about the societal costs and an increased number of certifications if remote consultations were too easily accessible. The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the findings should be interpreted in that context. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that issuing sickness certifications in remote consultations were viewed to be suitable for COVID-19 related problems, for patients the GP has met before, for the follow-up of known medical problems, and the extension of sickness certifications. Not meeting the patient face-to-face may affect the GP-patient relationship as well as make the GPs' dual role more challenging.

KEY POINTSThe GPs perceived issuing sickness certifications in remote consultations as suitable when patient and health problem are known, and when the certification is an extension.Issuing sickness certifications in remote consultations can both harm and strengthen the GP-patient relationship.The GPs were aware of their social responsibility and were concerned that issuing sickness certificates in remote consultations can change their sick-listing practice.

A Trial-Based Cost-Utility Analysis of a Medication Optimization Intervention Versus Standard Care in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Older adults are at greater risk of medication-related harm than younger adults. The Integrated Medication Management model is an interdisciplinary method aiming to optimize medication therapy and improve patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the cost effectiveness of a medication optimization intervention compared to standard care in acutely hospitalized older adults. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis including 285 adults aged ≥ 70 years was carried out alongside the IMMENSE study. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived using the EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Level Health State Questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L). Patient-level data for healthcare use and costs were obtained from administrative registers, taking a healthcare perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated for a 12-month follow-up and compared to a societal willingness-to-pay range of €/QALY 27,067-81,200 (NOK 275,000-825,000). Because of a capacity issue in a primary care resulting in extended hospital stays, a subgroup analysis was carried out for non-long and long stayers with hospitalizations < 14 days or ≥ 14 days. RESULTS: Mean QALYs were 0.023 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.022-0.025] higher and mean healthcare costs were €4429 [95% CI - 1101 to 11,926] higher for the intervention group in a full population analysis. This produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €192,565/QALY. For the subgroup analysis, mean QALYs were 0.067 [95% CI 0.066-0.070, n = 222] and - 0.101 [95% CI - 0.035 to 0.048, n = 63] for the intervention group in the non-long stayers and long stayers, respectively. Corresponding mean costs were €- 824 [95% CI - 3869 to 2066] and €1992 [95% CI - 17,964 to 18,811], respectively. The intervention dominated standard care for the non-long stayers with a probability of cost effectiveness of 93.1-99.2% for the whole willingness-to-pay range and 67.8% at a zero willingness to pay. Hospitalizations were the main cost driver, and readmissions contributed the most to the cost difference between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: According to societal willingness-to-pay thresholds, the medication optimization intervention was not cost effective compared to standard care for the full population. The intervention dominated standard care for the non-long stayers, with a high probability of cost effectiveness. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The IMMENSE trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on 28 June, 2016 before enrolment started (NCT02816086).

Older high-cost patients in Norwegian somatic hospitals: a register-based study of patient characteristics.

OBJECTIVE: Two-thirds of the economic resources in Norwegian hospitals are used on 10% of the patients. Most of these high-cost patients are older adults, which experience more unplanned hospital admissions, longer hospital stays and higher readmission rates than other patients. This study aims to examine the individual and clinical characteristics of older patients with unplanned admissions to Norwegian somatic hospitals and how these characteristics differ between high-cost and low-cost older patients. DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional study. SETTING: Norwegian somatic hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: National registry data of older Norwegian patients (≥65 years) with ≥1 unplanned contact with somatic hospitals in 2019 (n=2 11 738). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: High-cost older patients were defined as those within the 10% of the highest diagnosis-related group weights in 2019 (n=21 179). We compared high-cost to low-cost older patients using bivariate analyses and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Men were more likely to be high-cost older patients than women (OR=1.25, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.29) and the oldest (90+ years) compared with the youngest older adults (65-69 years) were less likely to cause high costs (OR=0.47, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.51). Those with the highest level of education were less likely to cause high costs than those with primary school degrees (OR=0.74, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.80). Main diagnosis group (OR=3.50, 95% CI 3.37 to 3.63) and dying (OR=4.13, 95% CI 3.96 to 4.30) were the clinical characteristics most strongly associated with the likelihood of being a high-cost older patient. CONCLUSION: Several of the observed patient characteristics in this study may warrant further investigation as they might contribute to high healthcare costs. For example, MDGs, reflecting comprehensive healthcare needs and lower education, which is associated with poorer health status, increase the likelihood of being high-cost older patients. Our results indicate that Norwegian hospitals function according to the intentions of those having the highest needs receiving most services.

Internet Use for Obtaining Medicine Information: Cross-sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: The internet is increasingly being used as a source of medicine-related information. People want information to facilitate decision-making and self-management, and they tend to prefer the internet for ease of access. However, it is widely acknowledged that the quality of web-based information varies. Poor interpretation of medicine information can lead to anxiety and poor adherence to drug therapy. It is therefore important to understand how people search, select, and trust medicine information. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to establish the extent of internet use for seeking medicine information among Norwegian pharmacy customers, analyze factors associated with internet use, and investigate the level of trust in different sources and websites. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study with a convenience sample of pharmacy customers recruited from all but one community pharmacy in Tromsø, a medium size municipality in Norway (77,000 inhabitants). Persons (aged ≥16 years) able to complete a questionnaire in Norwegian were asked to participate in the study. The recruitment took place in September and October 2020. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, social media was also used to recruit medicine users. RESULTS: A total of 303 respondents reported which sources they used to obtain information about their medicines (both prescription and over the counter) and to what extent they trusted these sources. A total of 125 (41.3%) respondents used the internet for medicine information, and the only factor associated with internet use was age. The odds of using the internet declined by 5% per year of age (odds ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.94-0.97; P=.048). We found no association between internet use and gender, level of education, or regular medicine use. The main purpose reported for using the internet was to obtain information about side effects. Other main sources of medicine information were physicians (n=191, 63%), pharmacy personnel (n=142, 47%), and medication package leaflets (n=124, 42%), while 36 (12%) respondents did not obtain medicine information from any sources. Note that 272 (91%) respondents trusted health professionals as a source of medicine information, whereas 58 (46%) respondents who used the internet trusted the information they found on the internet. The most reliable websites were the national health portals and other official health information sites. CONCLUSIONS: Norwegian pharmacy customers use the internet as a source of medicine information, but most still obtain medicine information from health professionals and packet leaflets. People are aware of the potential for misinformation on websites, and they mainly trust high-quality sites run by health authorities.

Implementation of a shared medication list in primary care - a controlled pre-post study of medication discrepancies.

BACKGROUND: Access to medicines information is important when treating patients, yet discrepancies in medication records are common. Many countries are developing shared medication lists across health care providers. These systems can improve information sharing, but little is known about how they affect the need for medication reconciliation. The aim of this study was to investigate whether an electronically Shared Medication List (eSML) reduced discrepancies between medication lists in primary care. METHODS: In 2018, eSML was tested for patients in home care who received multidose drug dispensing (MDD) in Oslo, Norway. We followed this transition from the current paper-based medication list to an eSML. Medication lists from the GP, home care service and community pharmacy were compared 3 months before the implementation and 18 months after. MDD patients in a neighbouring district in Oslo served as a control group. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-nine patients were included (100 intervention; 89 control). Discrepancies were reduced from 389 to 122 (p <  0.001) in the intervention group, and from 521 to 503 in the control group (p = 0.734). After the implementation, the share of mutual prescription items increased from 77 to 94%. Missing prescriptions for psycholeptics, analgesics and dietary supplements was reduced the most. CONCLUSIONS: The eSML greatly decreases discrepancies between the GP, home care and pharmacy medication lists, but does not eliminate the need for medication reconciliation.

From Paper to E-Prescribing of Multidose Drug Dispensing: A Qualitative Study of Workflow in a Community Care Setting.

E-prescribing is now widespread and, in some countries, has completely replaced paper prescriptions. In Norway, almost all prescribing is electronic, except for multidose drug dispensing (MDD), which is still sent to the pharmacy by fax or ordinary mail. MDD is an adherence aid used by one-third of all patients receiving home care services. In this paper, we present results from a qualitative study evaluating the introduction of e-prescribing for MDD in a community health care setting. The focus is on the work and workflow for the pharmacists and nurses involved in the medication-handling process. We used the pragmatic process evaluation framework and the systematic text condensation method to analyse the data. We conducted 12 interviews with 34 nurses and pharmacists. This study shows that the e-prescribing of MDD led to greater integration between systems, both within the existing MDD system and across care levels, potentially improving patient safety. However, the structured prescriptions increased the need for clarifications, resulting in an increased overall workload. A greater understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the different professionals in the medication management chain and their needs would improve the workflow of the nurses and pharmacists involved.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing to older patients receiving multidose drug dispensing.

BACKGROUND: Multidose drug dispensing (MDD) is an adherence aid that provides patients with machine-dispensed medicines in disposable unit bags, usually for a 14 day period. Previous studies have suggested that the quality of prescribing, with time, is lower for MDD users, compared to patients receiving prescriptions dispensed as usual. This study aimed to examine the quality of prescribing to Norwegian elderly home care service patients receiving MDD. METHODS: A cross-sectional study comprising 45,593 MDD patients aged ≥70 years was performed. The proportion of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) was assessed using the Norwegian General Practice Criteria, and drug-drug interactions (DDI) were investigated using the Norwegian Medicines Agency database. RESULTS: On average, patients were prescribed 10.6 drugs (SD = 5.0), of which 6.1 were dispensed via MDD. Men used on average fewer drugs than women (10.7 vs 11.1), Twenty-seven percent of patients used at least one PIM. Concomitant use of three or more psychotropic drugs (10.8%), and prescribing of diazepam (6.4%) was the most commonly identified inappropriate prescribing. DDIs affected 59% of the patients, however, only 2.7% had serious interactions. Women were more frequently exposed to both PIMs and DDIs than men, with an odds ratio of 1.50 (95% CI: 1.43-1.58) and 1.43 (95% CI: 1.37-1.50), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Polypharmacy is common in elderly Norwegian patients using MDD. About one-fourth of the patients were exposed to PIMs, and over half were exposed to DDI.

Clinical Videoconferencing as eHealth: A Critical-Realist Review and Qualitative Meta-Synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Earlier work has described videoconferencing technologies, peripheral equipment, organizational models, human relations, purposes, goals and roles as versatile, multifaceted, and those used differently in different clinical practices. Knowledge about benefits and challenges connected to specific characteristics of services are lacking. A 2005 systematic review of published definitions of electronic health (eHealth) identified 51 unique definitions. In addition, the "10 E's of eHealth" was developed. In 2015, the question "What Is eHealth: Time for an Update?" was posed. OBJECTIVE: Considering videoconferencing as eHealth, the objective of the paper is twofold: to demonstrate and cluster (different) clinical videoconferencing practices and their situated implications and to suggest interpretive concepts that apply to all clusters and contribute to generative learning of eHealth by discussing the concepts as add-ons to existing descriptions of eHealth in the "10 E's of eHealth." METHODS: We performed a literature search via the National Center for Biotechnology Information, encompassing PubMed and PubMedCentral, for quality reviews and primary studies. We used the terms "videoconferencing" and "clinical practices." The selection process was based upon clearly defined criteria. We used an electronic form to extract data. The analysis was inspired by critical and realist review types, grounded theory, and qualitative meta-synthesis. RESULTS: The search returned 354 reviews and primary studies. This paper considered the primary studies, and 16 were included. We identified the following 4 broad clusters: videoconferencing as a controlled technological intervention within existing health care organizations for expert advice, controlled mixed interventions with experimental organizational arrangements, videoconferencing as an emerging technosocial service involving dialogue and empowerment of patients, and videoconferencing as a controlled intervention to improve administrative efficiency. The analysis across the clusters resulted in a proposal to add the following 4 D's to the existing 10 E's: (inter)-dependent, differentiated across services and along temporal lines, dynamic in terms of including novel elements for meeting incremental needs, and demanding in terms of making new challenges and dual results visible and needing fresh resources to meet those challenges. For a normative discussion about what eHealth should be according to authors' conclusions, results suggested ethical, in that users interests should be respected, and not harmful in terms of increasing symptom burden. CONCLUSIONS: Services were enacted as dynamic, differentiated concerning content and considerations of quality and adaptive along temporal lines. They were made to work from an ongoing demand for fresh resources, making them interdependent. The 4 D's-Dynamic, Differentiated, Demanding, and (inter) Dependent-serve as pragmatic add-ons to the "10 E's of eHealth." Questions concerning outcome of specified balances between standardization and customization in clinical settings should be addressed in future research along with the emerging dual character of outcome: services being considered both "good" and "bad."

Methods to Evaluate the Effects of Internet-Based Digital Health Interventions for Citizens: Systematic Review of Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Digital health can empower citizens to manage their health and address health care system problems including poor access, uncoordinated care and increasing costs. Digital health interventions are typically complex interventions. Therefore, evaluations present methodological challenges. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to provide a systematic overview of the methods used to evaluate the effects of internet-based digital health interventions for citizens. Three research questions were addressed to explore methods regarding approaches (study design), effects and indicators. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of reviews of the methods used to measure the effects of internet-based digital health interventions for citizens. The protocol was developed a priori according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols and the Cochrane Collaboration methodology for overviews of reviews. Qualitative, mixed-method, and quantitative reviews published in English or French from January 2010 to October 2016 were included. We searched for published reviews in PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINHAL and Epistemonikos. We categorized the findings based on a thematic analysis of the reviews structured around study designs, indicators, types of interventions, effects and perspectives. RESULTS: A total of 20 unique reviews were included. The most common digital health interventions for citizens were patient portals and patients' access to electronic health records, covered by 10/20 (50%) and 6/20 (30%) reviews, respectively. Quantitative approaches to study design included observational study (15/20 reviews, 75%), randomized controlled trial (13/20 reviews, 65%), quasi-experimental design (9/20 reviews, 45%), and pre-post studies (6/20 reviews, 30%). Qualitative studies or mixed methods were reported in 13/20 (65%) reviews. Five main categories of effects were identified: (1) health and clinical outcomes, (2) psychological and behavioral outcomes, (3) health care utilization, (4) system adoption and use, and (5) system attributes. Health and clinical outcomes were measured with both general indicators and disease-specific indicators and reported in 11/20 (55%) reviews. Patient-provider communication and patient satisfaction were the most investigated psychological and behavioral outcomes, reported in 13/20 (65%) and 12/20 (60%) reviews, respectively. Evaluation of health care utilization was included in 8/20 (40%) reviews, most of which focused on the economic effects on the health care system. CONCLUSIONS: Although observational studies and surveys have provided evidence of benefits and satisfaction for patients, there is still little reliable evidence from randomized controlled trials of improved health outcomes. Future evaluations of digital health interventions for citizens should focus on specific populations or chronic conditions which are more likely to achieve clinically meaningful benefits and use high-quality approaches such as randomized controlled trials. Implementation research methods should also be considered. We identified a wide range of effects and indicators, most of which focused on patients as main end users. Implications for providers and the health system should also be included in evaluations or monitoring of digital health interventions.

How to Measure Costs and Benefits of eHealth Interventions: An Overview of Methods and Frameworks.

Information on the costs and benefits of eHealth interventions is needed, not only to document value for money and to support decision making in the field, but also to form the basis for developing business models and to facilitate payment systems to support large-scale services. In the absence of solid evidence of its effects, key decision makers may doubt the effectiveness, which, in turn, limits investment in, and the long-term integration of, eHealth services. However, it is not realistic to conduct economic evaluations of all eHealth applications and services in all situations, so we need to be able to generalize from those we do conduct. This implies that we have to select the most appropriate methodology and data collection strategy in order to increase the transferability across evaluations. This paper aims to contribute to the understanding of how to apply economic evaluation methodology in the eHealth field. It provides a brief overview of basic health economics principles and frameworks and discusses some methodological issues and challenges in conducting cost-effectiveness analysis of eHealth interventions. Issues regarding the identification, measurement, and valuation of costs and benefits are outlined. Furthermore, this work describes the established techniques of combining costs and benefits, presents the decision rules for identifying the preferred option, and outlines approaches to data collection strategies. Issues related to transferability and complexity are also discussed.

Low-intensity self-management intervention for persons with type 2 diabetes using a mobile phone-based diabetes diary, with and without health counseling and motivational interviewing: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The present study protocol is designed to cover the Norwegian part of the European Union Collaborative Project-REgioNs of Europe WorkINg together for HEALTH (RENEWING HEALTH). Self-management support is an important element of care for persons with type 2 diabetes (T2D) for achieving metabolic control and positive lifestyle changes. Telemedicine (TM) with or without health counseling may become an important technological aid for self-management and may provide a user-centered model of care. In spite of many earlier studies on TM, there remains a lack of consensus in research findings about the effect of TM interventions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of RENEWING HEALTH is to validate and evaluate innovative TM tools on a large scale through a common evaluation, making it easier for decision makers to choose the most efficient and cost-effective technological interventions. The Norwegian pilot study evaluates whether the introduction of a mobile phone with a diabetes diary application together with health counseling intervention produces benefits in terms of the desired outcomes, as reflected in the hemoglobin A1c level, health-related quality of life, behavior change, and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: The present study has a mixed-method design comprising a three-armed prospective randomized controlled trial and qualitative interviews with study data collected at three time points: baseline, after 4 months, and after 1 year. The patients' registrations on the application are recorded continuously and are sent securely to a server. RESULTS: The inclusion of patients started in March 2011, and 100% of the planned sample size is included (N=151). Of all the participants, 26/151 patients (17.2%) are lost to follow-up by now, and 11/151 patients (7.3%) are still in the trial. Results of the study protocol will be presented in 2014. CONCLUSIONS: The key goals of this trial are to investigate the effect of an electronic diabetes diary app with and without health counseling, and to determine whether health counseling is important to the continued use of the application and the patients' health competence and acceptability. Research within this area is needed because few studies have investigated the effectiveness of apps used in long-term interventions with this degree of self-management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01315756; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01315756 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation/6BTyuRMpH).

Patients' willingness to pay for electronic communication with their general practitioner.

Despite the common use of electronic communication in other aspects of everyday life, its use between patients and health care providers has been slow to diffuse. Possible explanations are security issues and lack of payment mechanisms. This study investigated how patients value secure electronic access to their general practitioner (GP). One hundred and ninety-nine patients were asked an open-ended willingness-to-pay (WTP) question as part of a randomised controlled trial. We compared the WTP values between two groups of respondents; one group had had the opportunity to communicate electronically with their GP for a year and the other group had not. Fifty-two percent of the total sample was willing to pay for electronic GP contact. The group of patients with access revealed a significantly lower WTP than the group without such access. Possible explanations are that the system had fewer benefits than expected, a presence of hypothetical bias or simply a preference for face-to-face encounters.