RESUMO
The aim of this study was to investigate why adults participate in summative eHealth evaluations, and whether their reasons for participating affect their (non-)use of eHealth. A questionnaire was distributed among adults (aged ≥ 18 years) who participated in a summative eHealth evaluation. This questionnaire focused on participants' reason to enroll, their expectations, and on whether the study met their expectations. Answers to open-ended questions were coded by two researchers independently. With the generalized estimating equations method we tested whether there is a difference between the type of reasons in use of the eHealth service. One hundred and thirty-one adults participated (64.9% female; mean age 62.5 years (SD = 10.5)). Their reasons for participating were mainly health-related (e.g., being more active). Between two types of motivations there was a difference in the use of the eHealth service: Participants with an intellectual motivation were more likely to drop out, compared to participants with an altruistic motivation. The most prevalent expectations when joining a summative eHealth evaluation were health-related (like expecting to improve one's health). 38.6% of the participants said their expectation was fulfilled by the study. In conclusion, We encourage eHealth evaluators to learn about adults' motivation to participate in their summative evaluation, as this motivation is very likely to affect their results. Including altruistically motivated participants biases the results by their tendency to continue participating in a study.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: With the rise in human life expectancy, the prevalence of chronic disease has increased significantly. Adopting a healthy lifestyle can decrease the risk of chronic disease. Virtual coaching systems can help older adults adopt a healthy lifestyle.AimThe primary objective of this study was to assess the use, user experience and potential health effects of a conversational agent-based eHealth platform (Council of Coaches) implemented in a real-world setting among older adults. METHODS: An observational cohort study was conducted with older adults aged 55 years or older in the Netherlands. Participants were enrolled for 5-9 weeks during which they had access to Council of Coaches. They completed three questionnaires: pre-test, post-test, and at follow-up. After five weeks, an interview was conducted, and participants chose whether they wanted to use the eHealth intervention for another four weeks during the facultative phase. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 51 older adults (70.6% female) with a mean age of 65.3 years (SD = 7.4). Of these, 94.1% started interacting with Council of Coaches, and most participants interacted once per week. During the facultative phase, 21 participants were still interacting with Council of Coaches. Minimal clinical important differences in quality of life were found among the study population after interacting with Council of Coaches. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that eHealth interventions with virtual coaching can be used among older adults. This may increase quality of life for older adults, and decrease their healthcare needs. Future research into such eHealth interventions should take into account the inclusion of sufficient personalised content and the use of a mixed methods study for assessing the eHealth intervention.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: While the average human life expectancy has increased remarkably, the length of life with chronic conditions has also increased. To limit the occurrence of chronic conditions and comorbidities, it is important to adopt a healthy lifestyle. Within the European project "Council of Coaches," a personalized coaching platform was developed that supports developing and maintaining a healthy lifestyle. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study is to assess the user experience with and the use and potential health effects of a fully working Council of Coaches system implemented in a real-world setting among the target population, specifically older adults or adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus or chronic pain. METHODS: An observational cohort study with a pretest-posttest design will be conducted. The study population will be a dynamic cohort consisting of older adults, aged ≥55 years, as well as adults aged ≥18 years with type 2 diabetes mellitus or chronic pain. Each participant will interact in a fully automated manner with Council of Coaches for 5 to 9 weeks. The primary outcomes are user experience, use of the program, and potential effects (health-related factors). Secondary outcomes include demographics, applicability of the virtual coaches, and user interaction with the virtual coaches. RESULTS: Recruitment started in December 2019 and is conducted through mass mailing, snowball sampling, and advertisements in newspapers and social media. This study is expected to conclude in August 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study will either confirm or reject the hypothesis that a group of virtual embodied conversational coaches can keep users engaged over several weeks of interaction and contribute to positive health outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands Trial Register: NL7911; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7911. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/16641.
RESUMO
Background The more (inappropriate) drugs a patient uses, the higher the risk of drug related problems. To reduce these risks, medication reviews can be performed. Objective To report changes in the prescribed number of (potentially inappropriate) drugs before and after performing a medication review in high-risk polypharmacy patients. A secondary objective was to study reasons for continuing potentially inappropriate drugs (PIDs). Setting Dutch community pharmacy and general medical practice. Methods A retrospective longitudinal intervention study with a pre-test/post-test design and follow-up of 1 week and 3 months was performed. The study population consisted of 126 patients with polypharmacy and with additional risk for drug related problems that underwent a medication review in five community pharmacies. The medication review was performed by the pharmacist in close cooperation with the general practitioner of each corresponding patient. Main outcome measure Number of (potentially inappropriate) drugs, and appropriateness of prescribed medicines. Results The average number of drugs a patient used 1 day before the review was 8.7 (SD = 2.9), which decreased (p < 0.05) to 8.3 (SD = 2.7) 1 week after the review, and to 8.4 (SD = 2.6) 3 months after the review. The average number of PIDs was initially 0.6 (SD = 0.8) per patient and decreased to 0.4 (SD = 0.6, p < 0.05). Twenty-two of the 241 initial drug changes (9%) were deprescribed during follow-up. Registered reasons for continuing PIDs are clinical or patients' preferences. Conclusions Performing medication reviews in polypharmacy patients seems useful to continue at least in high-risk patients in The Netherlands. The time-consuming reviews could be limited to patients who are willing to change their medication.