ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence of the positive effects of electronic health (eHealth) interventions for patients with chronic illness, but implementation of such interventions into practice is challenging. Implementation strategies that potentially impact implementation outcomes and implementation success have been identified. Which strategies are actually used in the implementation of eHealth interventions for patients with chronic illness and which ones are the most effective is unclear. OBJECTIVE: This systematic realist review aimed to summarize evidence from empirical studies regarding (1) which implementation strategies are used when implementing eHealth interventions for patients with chronic illnesses living at home, (2) implementation outcomes, and (3) the relationship between implementation strategies, implementation outcomes, and degree of implementation success. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Library. Studies were included if they described implementation strategies used to support the integration of eHealth interventions into practice. Implementation strategies were categorized according to 9 categories defined by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change project: (1) engage consumers, (2) use evaluative and iterative strategies, (3) change infrastructure, (4) adapt and tailor to the context, (5) develop stakeholder interrelationships, (6) use financial strategies, (7) support clinicians, (8) provide interactive assistance, and (9) train and educate stakeholders. Implementation outcomes were extracted according to the implementation outcome framework by Proctor and colleagues: (1) acceptability, (2) adoption, (3) appropriateness, (4) cost, (5) feasibility, (6) fidelity, (7) penetration, and (8) sustainability. Implementation success was extracted according to the study authors' own evaluation of implementation success in relation to the used implementation strategies. RESULTS: The implementation strategies management support and engagement, internal and external facilitation, training, and audit and feedback were directly related to implementation success in several studies. No clear relationship was found between the number of implementation strategies used and implementation success. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first review examining implementation strategies, implementation outcomes, and implementation success of studies reporting the implementation of eHealth programs for patients with chronic illnesses living at home. The review indicates that internal and external facilitation, audit and feedback, management support, and training of clinicians are of importance for eHealth implementation. The review also points to the lack of eHealth studies that report implementation strategies in a comprehensive way and highlights the need to design robust studies focusing on implementation strategies in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018085539; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=85539.
Subject(s)
Chronic Disease/therapy , Health Plan Implementation/methods , Telemedicine/methods , HumansABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence supports the potential effectiveness of electronic health (eHealth) interventions in managing chronic pain. However, research on the needs and preferences of patients with chronic pain in relation to eHealth interventions is scarce. Eliciting user input in the development of eHealth interventions may be a crucial step toward developing meaningful interventions for patients for potentially improving treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the experiences of patients with chronic pain with regard to information and communication technology, understand how an eHealth intervention can support the everyday needs and challenges of patients with chronic pain, and identify possible facilitators and barriers for patients' use of an eHealth pain management intervention. METHODS: Twenty patients living with chronic pain and five spouses participated in individual interviews. Semistructured interview guides were used to explore participants' needs, experiences, and challenges in daily life as well as their information and communication technology experiences and preferences for eHealth support interventions. Spouses were recruited and interviewed to gain additional insight into the patients' needs. The study used qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: The participants were generally experienced technology users and reported using apps regularly. They were mainly in favor of using an eHealth self-management intervention for chronic pain and considered it a potentially acceptable way of gathering knowledge and support for pain management. The participants expressed the need for obtaining more information and knowledge, establishing a better balance in everyday life, and receiving support for improving communication and social participation. They provided suggestions for the eHealth intervention content and functionality to address these needs. Accessibility, personalization, and usability were emphasized as important elements for an eHealth support tool. The participants described an ideal eHealth intervention as one that could be used for support and distraction from pain, at any time or in any situation, regardless of varying pain intensity and concentration capacity. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into user preferences for eHealth interventions aiming to address self-management for chronic pain. Participants highlighted important factors to be considered when designing and developing eHealth interventions for self-management of chronic pain, illustrating the importance and benefit of including users in the development of eHealth interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03705104; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03705104.
