The Uptake and Use of Telemonitoring in Chronic Care Between 2014 and 2019: Nationwide Survey Among Patients and Health Care Professionals in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Telemonitoring could offer solutions to the mounting challenges for health care and could improve patient self-management. Studies have addressed the benefits and challenges of telemonitoring for certain patient groups. OBJECTIVE: This paper will examine the nationwide uptake of telemonitoring in chronic care in the Netherlands from 2014 to 2019 by means of an annual representative survey among patients and health care professionals. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2019, approximately 2900 patients with chronic diseases, 700 nurses, and 500 general practitioners (GPs) and medical specialists received a questionnaire. About 30 questions addressed topics about the use of eHealth and experiences with it, including data about telemonitoring. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2019, the use of telemonitoring remained stable for all groups except medical specialists. In medical specialist departments, the use of telemonitoring increased from 11.2% (18/161) in 2014 to 19.6% (36/184) in 2019 (χ24=12.3; P=.02). In 2019, telemonitoring was used by 5.8% (28/485) of people with chronic disease. This was 18.2% (41/225) in GP organizations and 40.4% (44/109), 38.0% (78/205), and 8.9% (29/325) in the organizations of nurses working in primary, secondary, and elderly care, respectively. Up to 10% of the targeted patient group such as diabetics were regarded by health care professionals as suitable for using telemonitoring. The main benefits mentioned by the patients were "comfort" (421/1043, 40.4%) and "living at home for longer/more comfortably" (334/1047, 31.9%). Health care professionals added "improvement of self-management" (63/176, 35.8% to 57/71, 80.3%), "better understanding of the patient's condition" (47/176, 26.7% to 42/71, 59.2%), "reduction of workload" (53/134, 39.6% of nurses in elderly care), "better tailoring of care plan to the patient's situation" (95/225, 42.2% of GPs), and "saves time for patients/caregivers" (61/176, 34.7% of medical specialists). Disadvantages mentioned by professionals were that "it takes time to monitor data" (13/130, 10% to 108/225, 48.0%), "it takes time to follow up alerts" (15/130, 11.5% to 117/225, 52.0%), and "it is difficult to estimate which patients can work with telemonitoring" (22/113, 19.5% to 94/225, 41.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The uptake of telemonitoring in Dutch chronic care remained stable during 2014-2019 but increased among medical specialists. According to both patients and professionals, telemonitoring improves the quality of life and quality of care. Skills for suitably including eligible patients and for allocating the tasks of data monitoring and follow-up care within the team would help to further increase the use of telemonitoring.

Self-monitoring of health data by patients with a chronic disease: does disease controllability matter?

BACKGROUND: There is a growing emphasis on self-monitoring applications that allow patients to measure their own physical health parameters. A prerequisite for achieving positive effects is patients' willingness to self-monitor. The controllability of disease types, patients' perceived self-efficacy and health problems could play an essential role in this. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between patients' willingness to self-monitor and a range of disease and patient specific variables including controllability of disease type, patients' perceived self-efficacy and health problems. METHODS: Data regarding 627 participants with 17 chronic somatic disease types from a Dutch panel of people with chronic diseases have been used for this cross-sectional study. Perceived self-efficacy was assessed using the general self-efficacy scale, perceived health problems using the Physical Health Composite Score (PCS). Participants indicated their willingness to self-monitor. An expert panel assessed for 17 chronic disease types the extent to which patients can independently keep their disease in control. Logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Patients' willingness to self-monitor differs greatly among disease types: patients with diabetes (71.0%), asthma (59.6%) and hypertension (59.1%) were most willing to self-monitor. In contrast, patients with rheumatism (40.0%), migraine (41.2%) and other neurological disorders (42.9%) were less willing to self-monitor. It seems that there might be a relationship between disease controllability scores and patients' willingness to self-monitor. No evidence is found of a relationship between general self-efficacy and PCS scores, and patients' willingness to self-monitor. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first evidence that patients' willingness to self-monitor might be associated with disease controllability. Further research should investigate this association more deeply and should focus on how disease controllability influences willingness to self-monitor. In addition, since willingness to self-monitor differed greatly among patient groups, it should be taken into account that not all patient groups are willing to self-monitor.

Expectations and needs of patients with a chronic disease toward self-management and eHealth for self-management purposes.

BACKGROUND: Self-management is considered as an essential component of chronic care by primary care professionals. eHealth is expected to play an important role in supporting patients in their self-management. For effective implementation of eHealth it is important to investigate patients' expectations and needs regarding self-management and eHealth. The objectives of this study are to investigate expectations and needs of people with a chronic condition regarding self-management and eHealth for self-management purposes, their willingness to use eHealth, and possible differences between patient groups regarding these topics. METHODS: Five focus groups with people with diabetes (n = 14), COPD (n = 9), and a cardiovascular condition (n = 7) were conducted in this qualitative research. Separate focus groups were organized based on patients' chronic condition. The following themes were discussed: 1) the impact of the chronic disease on patients' daily life; 2) their opinions and needs regarding self-management; and 3) their expectations and needs regarding, and willingness to use, eHealth for self-management purposes. A conventional content analysis approach was used for coding. RESULTS: Patient groups seem to differ in expectations and needs regarding self-management and eHealth for self-management purposes. People with diabetes reported most needs and benefits regarding self-management and were most willing to use eHealth, followed by the COPD group. People with a cardiovascular condition mentioned having fewer needs for self-management support, because their disease had little impact on their life. In all patient groups it was reported that the patient, not the care professional, should choose whether or not to use eHealth. Moreover, participants reported that eHealth should not replace, but complement personal care. Many participants reported expecting feelings of anxiety by doing measurement themselves and uncertainty about follow-up of deviant data of measurements. In addition, many participants worried about the implementation of eHealth being a consequence of budget cuts in care. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that aspects of eHealth, and the way in which it should be implemented, should be tailored to the patient. Patients' expected benefits of using eHealth to support self-management and their perceived controllability over their disease seem to play an important role in patients' willingness to use eHealth for self-management purposes.

Understanding the use of email consultation in primary care using a retrospective observational study with data of Dutch electronic health records.

OBJECTIVES: It is unclear why the use of email consultation is not more widespread in Dutch general practice, particularly because, since 2006, its costs can be reimbursed. To encourage further implementation, it is needed to understand the current use of email consultations. This study aims to understand the use of email consultation by different patient groups, compared with other general practice (GP) consultations. SETTING: For this retrospective observational study, we used Dutch routine electronic health record data obtained from NIVEL Primary Care Database for the years 2010 and 2014. PARTICIPANTS: 200 general practices were included in 2010 (734 122 registered patients) and 434 in 2014 (1 630 386 registered patients). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The number and percentage of email consultations and patient characteristics (age, gender, neighbourhood socioeconomic status and diagnoses) of email consultation users were investigated and compared with those who had a telephone or face-to-face consultation. General practice characteristics were also taken into account. RESULTS: 32.0% of the Dutch general practices had at least one email consultation in 2010, rising to 52.8% in 2014. In 2014, only 0.7% of the GP consultations were by email (the others comprised home visits, telephone and face-to-face consultations). Its use highly varied among general practices. Most email consultations were done for psychological (14.7%); endocrine, metabolic and nutritional (10.9%); and circulatory (10.7%) problems. These diagnosis categories appeared less frequently in telephone and face-to-face consultations. Patients who had an email consultation were older than patients who had a telephone or face-to-face consultation. In contrast, patients with diabetes who had an email consultation were younger. CONCLUSION: Even though email consultation was done in half the general practices in the Netherlands in 2014, the actual use of it is extremely low. Patients who had an email consultation differ from those who had a telephone or face-to-face consultation. In addition, the use of email consultation by patients is dependent on its provision by GPs.