Experiences with telemedicine-based follow-up of chronic conditions: the views of patients and health personnel enrolled in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine is often promoted as a possible solution to some of the challenges healthcare systems in many countries face, and an increasing number of studies evaluate the clinical effects. So far, the studies show varying results. Less attention has been paid to systemic factors, such as the context, implementation, and mechanisms of these interventions. METHODS: This study evaluates the experiences of patients and health personnel enrolled in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial comparing telemedicine-based follow-up of chronic conditions with usual care. Patients in the intervention group received an individual treatment plan together with computer tablets and home telemonitoring devices to report point-of-care measurements, e.g., blood pressure, blood glucose or oxygen saturation, and to respond to health related questions reported to a follow-up service. In response to abnormal measurement results, a follow-up service nurse would contact the patient and consider relevant actions. We conducted 49 interviews with patients and 77 interviews with health personnel and managers at the local centers. The interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis and based on recommendations for conducting process evaluation, considering three core aspects within the process of delivering a complex intervention: (1) context, (2) implementation, and (3) mechanisms of impact. RESULTS: Patients were mainly satisfied with the telemedicine-based service, and experienced increased safety and understanding of their symptoms and illness. Implementation of the service does, however, require dedicated resources over time. Slow adjustment of other healthcare providers may have contributed to the absence of reductions in the use of specialized healthcare and general practitioner (GP) services. An evident advantage of the service is its flexibility, yet this may also challenge cost-efficiency of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a telemedicine-based service in primary healthcare is a complex process that is sensitive to contextual factors and that requires time and dedicated resources to ensure successful implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered in www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT04142710). Study start: 2019-02-09, Study completion: 2021-06-30, Study type: Interventional, Intervention/treatment: Telemedicine tablet and tools to perform measurements. Informed and documented consent was obtained from all subjects and next of kin participating in the study.

Pragmatic randomized controlled trial comparing a complex telemedicine-based intervention with usual care in patients with chronic conditions.

This study evaluates a complex telemedicine-based intervention targeting patients with chronic health problems. Computer tablets and home telemonitoring devices are used by patients to report point-of-care measurements, e.g., blood pressure, blood glucose or oxygen saturation, and to answer health-related questions at a follow-up center. We designed a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to compare the telemedicine-based intervention with usual care in six local centers in Norway. The study outcomes included health-related quality of life (HRQoL) based on the EuroQol questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), patient experiences, and utilization of healthcare. We also conducted a cost-benefit analysis to inform policy implementation, as well as a process evaluation (reported elsewhere). We used mixed methods to analyze data collected during the trial (health data, survey data and interviews with patients and health personnel) as well as data from national health registers. 735 patients were included during the period from February 2019 to June 2020. One year after inclusion, the effects on the use of healthcare services were mixed. The proportion of patients receiving home-based care services declined, but the number of GP contacts increased in the intervention group compared to the control group. Participants in the intervention group experienced improved HRQoL compared to the control group and were more satisfied with the follow-up of their health. The cost-benefit of the intervention depends largely on the design of the service and the value society places on improved safety and self-efficacy.