Making sense of a new technology in clinical practice: a qualitative study of patient and physician perspectives.

BACKGROUND: The number of new technologies for risk assessment available in health care is increasing. These technologies are intended to contribute to both improved care practices and improved patient outcomes. To do so however, there is a need to study how new technologies are understood and interpreted by users in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to explore patient and physician perspectives on the usefulness of a new technology to detect Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy (CAN) in a specialist diabetes clinic. The technology is a handheld device that measures resting heart rate and conducts three cardiac autonomic reflex tests to evaluate heart rate variability. METHODS: The study relied on three sources of data: observations of medical consultations where results of the CAN test were reported (n = 8); interviews with patients who had received the CAN test (n = 19); and interviews with physicians who reported results of the CAN test (n = 9). Data were collected at the specialist diabetes clinic between November 2013 and January 2014. Data were analysed using the concept of technological frames which is used to assess how physicians and patients understand and interpret the new technology. RESULTS: Physicians generally found it difficult to communicate test results to patients in terms that patients could understand and to translate results into meaningful implications for the treatment of patients. Results of the study indicate that patients did not recall having done the CAN test nor recall receiving the results. Furthermore, patients were generally unsure about the purpose of the CAN test and the implications of the results. DISCUSSION: Involving patients and physicians is essential when a new technology is introduced in clinical practice. This particularly includes the interpretation and communication processes related to its use. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of a new risk assessment technology into clinical practice can be accompanied by several challenges. It is suggested that more information about the CAN test be provided to patients and that a dialogue-based approach be used when communicating test results to patients in order to best support the use of the technology in clinical practice.

What does theory-driven evaluation add to the analysis of self-reported outcomes of diabetes education? A comparative realist evaluation of a participatory patient education approach.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the effects of the Next Education (NEED) patient education approach in diabetes education. METHODS: We tested the use of the NEED approach at eight intervention sites (n=193). Six additional sites served as controls (n=58). Data were collected through questionnaires, interviews and observations. We analysed data using descriptive statistics, logistic regression and systematic text condensation. RESULTS: Results from logistic regression demonstrated better overall assessment of education program experiences and enhanced self-reported improvements in maintaining medications correctly among patients from intervention sites, as compared to control sites. Interviews and observations suggested that improvements in health behavior could be explained by mechanisms related to the education setting, including using person-centeredness and dialogue. However, similar mechanisms were observed at control sites. Observations suggested that the quality of group dynamics, patients' motivation and educators' ability to facilitate participation in education, supported by the NEED approach, contributed to better results at intervention sites. CONCLUSION: The use of participatory approaches and, in particular, the NEED patient education approach in group-based diabetes education improved self-management skills and health behavior outcomes among individuals with diabetes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The use of dialogue tools in diabetes education is advised for educators.