Feasibility and Acceptability of a Health App Platform Providing Individuals With a Budget to Purchase Preselected Apps to Work on Their Health and Well-Being: Quantitative Evaluation Study.

BACKGROUND: The potential of health apps for health promotion and disease prevention is widely recognized. However, uptake is limited due to barriers individuals face in finding suitable and trustworthy apps, such as the overwhelming amount of available health apps. Therefore, the health app platform "FitKnip" was developed, enabling individuals to purchase preselected, trustworthy health apps with a budget of 100 euros (a currency exchange rate of EUR €1=US $1.0831 is applicable). The platform aimed to empower individuals to improve their health and vitality, ultimately supporting a more healthy society. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the health app platform in terms of feasibility and acceptability. Potential effects on health empowerment and health outcomes were secondarily explored. METHODS: This quantitative study was part of a mixed methods study with a prospective pre-post interventional design. We collected web-based user data, and self-reported web-based questionnaires were collected over 5 measurements over an 8-month period. Use statistics were tracked on the platform, including the number of purchased apps and euros spent per user registered within the health app platform. We measured the user-friendliness of the health app platform using the System Usability Scale (SUS) and satisfaction using the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 (CSQ-8) and several 10-point Likert items. We asked participants to indicate, on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 10 (completely), how much the health app platform contributed to various areas related to health empowerment. We assessed health-related quality of life by the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) and one's perceived level of stress by the 10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10). RESULTS: A total of 1650 participants were included, of whom 42% (685/1650) bought at least 1 app. The majority of those purchased one app (244/685, 35.6%). The health app platform was rated as user-friendly (SUS mean 66.5, SD 20.7; range 66.5-70.0), and the acceptability of the health app platform was moderate (CSQ-8 mean 20.0, SD 1.5; range 19.6-20.0). Results furthermore showed that participants were generally satisfied to highly satisfied with the ease of the payment system to purchase apps on the platform (median 8, IQR 7-10), the look and feel of the platform (median 7, IQR 6-8), as well as the provided budget of 100 euros (median 9, IQR 7-10). Participants were less satisfied with the amount (median 6, IQR 4-7) and diversity (median 6, IQR 4-7) of apps offered on the platform. CONCLUSIONS: A health app platform is a promising initiative to enhance public health. Feasibility and acceptability are critical for success, as they ensure that such a platform is accessible, user-friendly, and meets end users' needs and preferences. This can help to increase uptake, engagement, and ultimately the platform's adoption and effectiveness.

Tailoring remote patient management in cardiovascular risk management for healthcare professionals using panel management: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: While remote patient management (RPM) has the potential to assist in achieving treatment targets for cardiovascular risk factors in primary care, its effectiveness may vary among different patient subgroups. Panel management, which involves proactive care for specific patient risk groups, could offer a promising approach to tailor RPM to these groups. This study aims to (i) assess the perception of healthcare professionals and other stakeholders regarding the adoption and (ii) identify the barriers and facilitators for successfully implementing such a panel management approach. METHODS: In total, nineteen semi-structured interviews and two focus groups were conducted in the Netherlands. Three authors reviewed the audited transcripts. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Strategies (CFIR) domains were used for the thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 24 participants (GPs, nurses, health insurers, project managers, and IT consultants) participated. Overall, a panel management approach to RPM in primary care was considered valuable by various stakeholders. Implementation barriers encompassed concerns about missing necessary risk factors for patient stratification, additional clinical and technical tasks for nurses, and reimbursement agreements. Facilitators included tailoring consultation frequency and early detection of at-risk patients, an implementation manager accountable for supervising project procedures and establishing agreements on assessing implementation metrics, and ambassador roles. CONCLUSION: Panel management could enhance proactive care and accurately identify which patients could benefit most from RPM to mitigate CVD risk. For successful implementation, we recommend having clear agreements on technical support, financial infrastructure and the criteria for measuring evaluation outcomes.

Guide Development for eHealth Interventions Targeting People With a Low Socioeconomic Position: Participatory Design Approach.

BACKGROUND: People with a low socioeconomic position (SEP) are less likely to benefit from eHealth interventions, exacerbating social health inequalities. Professionals developing eHealth interventions for this group face numerous challenges. A comprehensive guide to support these professionals in their work could mitigate these inequalities. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a web-based guide to support professionals in the development, adaptation, evaluation, and implementation of eHealth interventions for people with a low SEP. METHODS: This study consisted of 2 phases. The first phase involved a secondary analysis of 2 previous qualitative and quantitative studies. In this phase, we synthesized insights from the previous studies to develop the guide's content and information structure. In the second phase, we used a participatory design process. This process included iterative development and evaluation of the guide's design with 11 professionals who had experience with both eHealth and the target group. We used test versions (prototypes) and think-aloud testing combined with semistructured interviews and a questionnaire to identify design requirements and develop and adapt the guide accordingly. RESULTS: The secondary analysis resulted in a framework of recommendations for developing the guide, which was categorized under 5 themes: development, reach, adherence, evaluation, and implementation. The participatory design process resulted in 16 requirements on system, content, and service aspects for the design of the guide. For the system category, the guide was required to have an open navigation strategy leading to more specific information and short pages with visual elements. Content requirements included providing comprehensible information, scientific evidence, a user perspective, information on practical applications, and a personal and informal tone of voice. Service requirements involved improving suitability for different professionals, ensuring long-term viability, and a focus on implementation. Based on these requirements, we developed the final version of "the inclusive eHealth guide." CONCLUSIONS: The inclusive eHealth guide provides a practical, user-centric tool for professionals aiming to develop, adapt, evaluate, and implement eHealth interventions for people with a low SEP, with the aim of reducing health disparities in this population. Future research should investigate its suitability for different end-user goals, its external validity, its applicability in specific contexts, and its real-world impact on social health inequality.

A Health App Platform Providing a Budget to Purchase Preselected Apps as an Innovative Way to Support Public Health: Qualitative Study With End Users and Other Stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: eHealth has the potential to improve health outcomes. However, this potential is largely untapped. Individuals face an overload of apps and have difficulties choosing suitable apps for themselves. In the FitKnip experiment, individuals were given access to a health app platform, where they could purchase reliable preselected health apps with a personal budget of €100 (US $107.35). By conducting a prospective study, we aimed to scientifically evaluate the FitKnip experiment as an innovative way to improve population health. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the experiment was to scientifically evaluate the FitKnip experiment as an innovative way to improve population health. More specifically, we conducted an in-depth qualitative evaluation of the concept and acceptability of FitKnip, its perceived impact on health empowerment, as well as the roles of stakeholders for the future implementation of a health app platform through focus group interviews. METHODS: This study followed a phenomenological research design and included 7 focus group interviews with end users and 1 with stakeholders, held between July and December 2020. End users were recruited through various institutions in the Netherlands, for example, insurance companies and local governments. All focus groups were semistructured using interview guides and were held via videoconferencing due to the COVID-19 pandemic measures. Each participant received access to a health app platform where they were enabled to purchase reliable, preselected health apps with a budget of €100 (US $107.35). The budget was valid for the entire research period. The health app platform offered 38 apps. A third party, a health care coalition, selected the apps to be included in FitKnip. The analyses were conducted according to the principles of the Framework Method. RESULTS: A priori formulated themes were concept, acceptability, health empowerment, and outcomes, and the roles of stakeholders for the future implementation of a health app platform. Both end users (n=31) and stakeholders (n=5) were enthusiastic about the concept of a health app platform. End users indicated missing apps regarding physical health and lifestyle and needing more guidance toward suitable apps. End users saw health empowerment as a precondition to using a health app platform and achieving health outcomes depending on the purchased mobile apps. End users and stakeholders identified potential providers and financing parties of FitKnip. Stakeholders recommended the establishment of a reputable national or international quality guidelines or certification for health and wellbeing apps, that can demonstrate the quality and reliability of mobile health applications. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed the need for a personalized and flexible platform. Next to this, a deeper understanding of the roles of stakeholders in such initiatives is needed especially on financing and reimbursement of health promotion and digital health services. A personalized, flexible health app platform is a promising initiative to support individuals in their health.

SERIES: eHealth in primary care. Part 6: Global perspectives: Learning from eHealth for low-resource primary care settings and across high-, middle- and low-income countries.

BACKGROUND: eHealth offers opportunities to improve health and healthcare systems and overcome primary care challenges in low-resource settings (LRS). LRS has been typically associated with low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), but they can be found in high-income countries (HIC) when human, physical or financial resources are constrained. Adopting a concept of LRS that applies to LMIC and HIC can facilitate knowledge interchange between eHealth initiatives while improving healthcare provision for socioeconomically disadvantaged groups across the globe. OBJECTIVES: To outline the contributions and challenges of eHealth in low-resource primary care settings. STRATEGY: We adopt a socio-ecological understanding of LRS, making LRS relevant to LMIC and HIC. To assess the potential of eHealth in primary care settings, we discuss four case studies according to the WHO 'building blocks for strengthening healthcare systems'. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The case studies illustrate eHealth's potential to improve the provision of healthcare by i) improving the delivery of healthcare (using AI-generated chats); ii) supporting the workforce (using telemedicine platforms); iii) strengthening the healthcare information system (through patient-centred healthcare information systems), and iv) improving system-related elements of healthcare (through a mobile health financing platform). Nevertheless, we found that development and implementation are hindered by user-related, technical, financial, regulatory and evaluation challenges. We formulated six recommendations to help anticipate or overcome these challenges: 1) evaluate eHealth's appropriateness, 2) know the end users, 3) establish evaluation methods, 4) prioritise the human component, 5) profit from collaborations, ensure sustainable financing and local ownership, 6) and contextualise and evaluate the implementation strategies.

An overview of facilitators and barriers in the development of eHealth interventions for people of low socioeconomic position: A Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: eHealth interventions can improve the health outcomes of people with a low socioeconomic position (SEP) by promoting healthy lifestyle behaviours. However, developing and implementing these interventions among the target group can be challenging for professionals. To facilitate the uptake of effective interventions, this study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators anticipated or experienced by professionals in the development, reach, adherence, implementation and evaluation phases of eHealth interventions for people with a low SEP. METHOD: We used a Delphi method, consisting of two online questionnaires, to determine the consensus on barriers and facilitators anticipated or experienced during eHealth intervention phases and their importance. Participants provided open-ended responses in the first round and rated statements in the second round. The interquartile range was used to calculate consensus, and the (totally) agree ratings were used to assess importance. RESULTS: Twenty-seven professionals participated in the first round, and 19 (70.4%) completed the second round. We found a consensus for 34.8% of the 46 items related to highly important rated barriers, such as the lack of involvement of low-SEP people in the development phase, lack of knowledge among professionals about reaching the target group, and lack of knowledge among lower-SEP groups about using eHealth interventions. Additionally, we identified a consensus for 80% of the 60 items related to highly important rated facilitators, such as rewarding people with a low SEP for their involvement in the development phase and connecting eHealth interventions to the everyday lives of lower-SEP groups to enhance reach. CONCLUSION: Our study provides valuable insights into the barriers and facilitators of developing eHealth interventions for people with a low SEP by examining current practices and offering recommendations for future improvements. Strengthening facilitators can help overcome these barriers. To achieve this, we recommend defining the roles of professionals and lower-SEP groups in each phase of eHealth intervention and disseminating this study's findings to professionals to optimize the impact of eHealth interventions for this group.

Translation, cultural adaptation and validity assessment of the Dutch version of the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire: a mixed-method approach.

BACKGROUND: The digitalization of healthcare requires users to have sufficient competence in using digital health technologies. In the Netherlands, as well as in other countries, there is a need for a comprehensive, person-centered assessment of eHealth literacy to understand and address eHealth literacy related needs, to improve equitable uptake and use of digital health technologies. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to translate and culturally adapt the original eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ) to Dutch and to collect initial validity evidence. METHODS: The eHLQ was translated using a systematic approach with forward translation, an item intent matrix, back translation, and consensus meetings with the developer. A validity-driven and multi-study approach was used to collect validity evidence on 1) test content, 2) response processes and 3) internal structure. Cognitive interviews (n = 14) were held to assess test content and response processes (Study 1). A pre-final eHLQ version was completed by 1650 people participating in an eHealth study (Study 2). A seven-factor Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) model was fitted to the data to assess the internal structure of the eHLQ. Invariance testing was performed across gender, age, education and current diagnosis. RESULTS: Cognitive interviews showed some problems in wording, phrasing and resonance with individual's world views. CFA demonstrated an equivalent internal structure to the hypothesized (original) eHLQ with acceptable fit indices. All items loaded substantially on their corresponding latent factors (range 0.51-0.81). The model was partially metric invariant across all subgroups. Comparison of scores between groups showed that people who were younger, higher educated and who had a current diagnosis generally scored higher across domains, however effect sizes were small. Data from both studies were triangulated, resulting in minor refinements to eight items and recommendations on use, score interpretation and reporting. CONCLUSION: The Dutch version of the eHLQ showed strong properties for assessing eHealth literacy in the Dutch context. While ongoing collection of validity evidence is recommended, the evidence presented indicate that the eHLQ can be used by researchers, eHealth developers and policy makers to identify eHealth literacy needs and inform the development of eHealth interventions to ensure that people with limited digital access and skills are not left behind.

What Makes a Quality Health App-Developing a Global Research-Based Health App Quality Assessment Framework for CEN-ISO/TS 82304-2: Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: The lack of an international standard for assessing and communicating health app quality and the lack of consensus about what makes a high-quality health app negatively affect the uptake of such apps. At the request of the European Commission, the international Standard Development Organizations (SDOs), European Committee for Standardization, International Organization for Standardization, and International Electrotechnical Commission have joined forces to develop a technical specification (TS) for assessing the quality and reliability of health and wellness apps. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to create a useful, globally applicable, trustworthy, and usable framework to assess health app quality. METHODS: A 2-round Delphi technique with 83 experts from 6 continents (predominantly Europe) participating in one (n=42, 51%) or both (n=41, 49%) rounds was used to achieve consensus on a framework for assessing health app quality. Aims included identifying the maximum 100 requirement questions for the uptake of apps that do or do not qualify as medical devices. The draft assessment framework was built on 26 existing frameworks, the principles of stringent legislation, and input from 20 core experts. A follow-up survey with 28 respondents informed a scoring mechanism for the questions. After subsequent alignment with related standards, the quality assessment framework was tested and fine-tuned with manufacturers of 11 COVID-19 symptom apps. National mirror committees from the 52 countries that participated in the SDO technical committees were invited to comment on 4 working drafts and subsequently vote on the TS. RESULTS: The final quality assessment framework includes 81 questions, 67 (83%) of which impact the scores of 4 overarching quality aspects. After testing with people with low health literacy, these aspects were phrased as "Healthy and safe," "Easy to use," "Secure data," and "Robust build." The scoring mechanism enables communication of the quality assessment results in a health app quality score and label, alongside a detailed report. Unstructured interviews with stakeholders revealed that evidence and third-party assessment are needed for health app uptake. The manufacturers considered the time needed to complete the assessment and gather evidence (2-4 days) acceptable. Publication of CEN-ISO/TS 82304-2:2021 Health software - Part 2: Health and wellness apps - Quality and reliability was approved in May 2021 in a nearly unanimous vote by 34 national SDOs, including 6 of the 10 most populous countries worldwide. CONCLUSIONS: A useful and usable international standard for health app quality assessment was developed. Its quality, approval rate, and early use provide proof of its potential to become the trusted, commonly used global framework. The framework will help manufacturers enhance and efficiently demonstrate the quality of health apps, consumers, and health care professionals to make informed decisions on health apps. It will also help insurers to make reimbursement decisions on health apps.

Assessment of Clinical Information Quality in Digital Health Technologies: International eDelphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Digital health technologies (DHTs), such as electronic health records and prescribing systems, are transforming health care delivery around the world. The quality of information in DHTs is key to the quality and safety of care. We developed a novel clinical information quality (CLIQ) framework to assess the quality of clinical information in DHTs. OBJECTIVE: This study explored clinicians' perspectives on the relevance, definition, and assessment of information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework. METHODS: We used a systematic and iterative eDelphi approach to engage clinicians who had information governance roles or personal interest in information governance; the clinicians were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling techniques. Data were collected using semistructured online questionnaires until consensus was reached on the information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework. Responses on the relevance of the dimensions were summarized to inform decisions on retention of the dimensions according to prespecified rules. Thematic analysis of the free-text responses was used to revise definitions and the assessment of dimensions. RESULTS: Thirty-five clinicians from 10 countries participated in the study, which was concluded after the second round. Consensus was reached on all dimensions and categories in the CLIQ framework: informativeness (accuracy, completeness, interpretability, plausibility, provenance, and relevance), availability (accessibility, portability, security, and timeliness), and usability (conformance, consistency, and maintainability). A new dimension, searchability, was introduced in the availability category to account for the ease of finding needed information in the DHTs. Certain dimensions were renamed, and some definitions were rephrased to improve clarity. CONCLUSIONS: The CLIQ framework reached a high expert consensus and clarity of language relating to the information quality dimensions. The framework can be used by health care managers and institutions as a pragmatic tool for identifying and forestalling information quality problems that could compromise patient safety and quality of care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057430.

The Barriers and Facilitators of eHealth-Based Lifestyle Intervention Programs for People With a Low Socioeconomic Status: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Promoting health behaviors and preventing chronic diseases through a healthy lifestyle among those with a low socioeconomic status (SES) remain major challenges. eHealth interventions are a promising approach to change unhealthy behaviors in this target group. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to identify key components, barriers, and facilitators in the development, reach, use, evaluation, and implementation of eHealth lifestyle interventions for people with a low SES. This review provides an overview for researchers and eHealth developers, and can assist in the development of eHealth interventions for people with a low SES. METHODS: We performed a scoping review based on Arksey and O'Malley's framework. A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, using terms related to a combination of the following key constructs: eHealth, lifestyle, low SES, development, reach, use, evaluation, and implementation. There were no restrictions on the date of publication for articles retrieved upon searching the databases. RESULTS: The search identified 1323 studies, of which 42 met our inclusion criteria. An update of the search led to the inclusion of 17 additional studies. eHealth lifestyle interventions for people with a low SES were often delivered via internet-based methods (eg, websites, email, Facebook, and smartphone apps) and offline methods, such as texting. A minority of the interventions combined eHealth lifestyle interventions with face-to-face or telephone coaching, or wearables (blended care). We identified the use of different behavioral components (eg, social support) and technological components (eg, multimedia) in eHealth lifestyle interventions. Facilitators in the development included iterative design, working with different disciplines, and resonating intervention content with users. Facilitators for intervention reach were use of a personal approach and social network, reminders, and self-monitoring. Nevertheless, barriers, such as technological challenges for developers and limited financial resources, may hinder intervention development. Furthermore, passive recruitment was a barrier to intervention reach. Technical difficulties and the use of self-monitoring devices were common barriers for users of eHealth interventions. Only limited data on barriers and facilitators for intervention implementation and evaluation were available. CONCLUSIONS: While we found large variations among studies regarding key intervention components, and barriers and facilitators, certain factors may be beneficial in building and using eHealth interventions and reaching people with a low SES. Barriers and facilitators offer promising elements that eHealth developers can use as a toolbox to connect eHealth with low SES individuals. Our findings suggest that one-size-fits-all eHealth interventions may be less suitable for people with a low SES. Future research should investigate how to customize eHealth lifestyle interventions to meet the needs of different low SES groups, and should identify the components that enhance their reach, use, and effectiveness.

Development of a Quality Management Model and Self-assessment Questionnaire for Hybrid Health Care: Concept Mapping Study.

BACKGROUND: Working with eHealth requires health care organizations to make structural changes in the way they work. Organizational structure and process must be adjusted to provide high-quality care. This study is a follow-up study of a systematic literature review on optimally organizing hybrid health care (eHealth and face to face) using the Donabedian Structure-Process-Outcome (SPO) framework to translate the findings into a modus operandi for health care organizations. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop an SPO-based quality assessment model for organizing hybrid health care using an accompanying self-assessment questionnaire. Health care organizations can use this model and a questionnaire to manage and improve their hybrid health care. METHODS: Concept mapping was used to enrich and validate evidence-based knowledge from a literature review using practice-based knowledge from experts. First, brainstorming was conducted. The participants listed all the factors that contributed to the effective organization of hybrid health care and the associated outcomes. Data from the brainstorming phase were combined with data from the literature study, and duplicates were removed. Next, the participants rated the factors on importance and measurability and grouped them into clusters. Finally, using multivariate statistical analysis (multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis) and group interpretation, an SPO-based quality management model and an accompanying questionnaire were constructed. RESULTS: All participants (n=39) were familiar with eHealth and were health care professionals, managers, researchers, patients, or eHealth suppliers. The brainstorming and literature review resulted in a list of 314 factors. After removing the duplicates, 78 factors remained. Using multivariate statistical analyses and group interpretations, a quality management model and questionnaire incorporating 8 clusters and 33 factors were developed. The 8 clusters included the following: Vision, strategy, and organization; Quality information technology infrastructure and systems; Quality eHealth application; Providing support to health care professionals; Skills, knowledge, and attitude of health care professionals; Attentiveness to the patient; Patient outcomes; and Learning system. The SPO categories were positioned as overarching themes to emphasize the interrelations between the clusters. Finally, a proposal was made to use the self-assessment questionnaire in practice, allowing measurement of the quality of each factor. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of hybrid care is determined by organizational, technological, process, and personal factors. The 33 most important factors were clustered in a quality management model and self-assessment questionnaire called the Hybrid Health Care Quality Assessment. The model visualizes the interrelations between the factors. Using a questionnaire, each factor can be assessed to determine how effectively it is organized and developed over time. Health care organizations can use the Hybrid Health Care Quality Assessment to identify improvement opportunities for solid and sustainable hybrid health care.

Facilitators and barriers to the implementation of improved solid fuel cookstoves and clean fuels in low-income and middle-income countries: an umbrella review.

2·6 billion people rely on solid fuels for cooking or heating. Accelerating access to cleaner solutions is crucial to reduce the negative effects of solid fuel use. Despite abundant evidence on how to implement these solutions, previous attempts have been disappointing. An overview of the evidence is missing and the translation of the evidence into practice is poor. We conducted an umbrella review using eight databases to: consolidate evidence on the factors that influence the implementation of improved solid fuel cookstoves and clean fuels in low-income and middle-income countries; weigh the level of confidence in existing evidence; and develop two practical implementation strategy tools. We identified 31 relevant reviews (13 systematic reviews and 18 narrative reviews) that covered over 479 primary studies. We found 15 implementation factors supported by the highest level of evidence. Regarding improved solid fuel cookstoves, these factors included: cost; knowledge and beliefs about the innovation; and compatibility. For clean fuels these factors included: cost; knowledge and beliefs about the innovation; and external policy and incentives. The factors were synthesised into the Cleaner Cookstove Implementation Tool and the Clean Fuel Implementation Tool. These tools can be used to optimise the implementation of cleaner cooking solutions, thereby improving health, environmental, climate, and gender equity outcomes.

Digital tools/eHealth to support CKD self-management: A qualitative study of perceptions, attitudes and needs of patients and health care professionals in China.

BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence supports the potential effectiveness of electronic health (eHealth) self-management interventions in improving disease self-management skills and health outcomes of patients suffering from chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, current research on CKD eHealth self-management interventions has almost exclusively focused on high-income, western countries. OBJECTIVE: To inform the adaptation of a tailored eHealth self-management intervention for patients with CKD in China based on the Dutch Medical Dashboard (MD) intervention, we examined the perceptions, attitudes and needs of Chinese patients with CKD and health care professionals (HCPs) towards eHealth based (self-management) interventions in general and the Dutch MD intervention in specific. METHODS: We conducted a basic interpretive, cross-sectional qualitative study comprising semi-structured interviews with 11 patients with CKD and 10 HCPs, and 2 focus group discussions with 9 patients with CKD. This study was conducted in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University in China. Data collection continued until data saturation was reached. All data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a framework approach. RESULTS: Three themes emerged: (1) experience with eHealth in CKD (self-management), (2) needs for supporting CKD self-management with the use of eHealth, and (3) adaptation and implementation of the Dutch MD intervention in China. Both patients and HCPs had experience with and solely mentioned eHealth to 'inform, monitor and track' as potentially relevant interventions to support CKD self-management, not those to support 'interaction' and 'data utilization'. Factors reported to influence the implementation of CKD eHealth self-management interventions included information barriers (i.e. quality and consistency of the disease-related information obtained via eHealth), perceived trustworthiness and safety of eHealth sources, clinical compatibility and complexity of eHealth, time constraints and eHealth literacy. Moreover, patients and HCPs expressed that eHealth interventions should support CKD self-management by improving the access to reliable and relevant disease related knowledge and optimizing the timeliness and quality of patient and HCPs interactions. Finally, suggestions to adaptation and implementation of the Dutch MD intervention in China were mainly related to improving the intervention functionalities and content of MD such as addressing the complexity of the platform and compatibility with HCPs' workflows. CONCLUSIONS: The identified perceptions, attitudes and needs towards eHealth self-management interventions in Chinese settings should be considered by researchers and intervention developers to adapt a tailored eHealth self-management intervention for patients with CKD in China. In more detail, future research needs to engage in co-creation processes with vulnerable groups during eHealth development and implementation, increase eHealth literacy and credibility of eHealth (information resource), ensure eHealth to be easy to use and well-integrated into HCPs' workflows.

Turning green: the impact of changing to more eco-friendly respiratory healthcare - a carbon and cost analysis of Dutch prescription data.

OBJECTIVES: Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) and soft mist inhalers have a substantially lower global warming potential than pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs). To help mitigate climate change, we assessed the potential emission reduction in CO2 equivalents when replacing pMDIs by non-propellant inhalers (NPIs) in Dutch respiratory healthcare and estimated the associated cost. DESIGN: We performed a descriptive analysis of prescription data from two national databases of two independent governmental bodies. First, we calculated the number of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma that were using inhalation medication (2020). Second, we calculated the number and total of daily defined doses of pMDIs and NPIs including DPIs and soft mist inhalers, as well as the number of dispensed spacers per patient (2020). Third, we estimated the potential emission reduction in CO2 equivalents if 70% of patients would switch from using pMDIs to using NPIs. Fourth, we performed a budget impact analysis. SETTING: Dutch respiratory healthcare. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The carbon footprint of current inhalation medication and the environmental and financial impact of replacing pMDIs with NPIs. RESULTS: In 2020, 1.4 million patients used inhalers for COPD or asthma treatment. A total of 364 million defined daily doses from inhalers were dispensed of which 49.6% were dispensed through pMDIs. We estimated that this could be reduced by 70% which would lead to an annual reduction in greenhouse gas emission of 63 million kg.CO2 equivalents saving at best EUR 49.1 million per year. CONCLUSIONS: In the Netherlands, substitution of pMDIs to NPIs for eligible patients is theoretically safe and in accordance with medical guidelines, while reducing greenhouse gas emission by 63 million kg.CO2 equivalents on average and saving at best EUR 49.1 million per year. This study confirms the potential climate and economic benefit of delivering a more eco-friendly respiratory care.

Medication availability and economic barriers to adherence in asthma and COPD patients in low-resource settings.

Inhaled medication is essential to control asthma and COPD, but availability and proper adherence are challenges in low-middle income countries (LMIC). Data on medication availability and adherence in Central Asia are lacking. We aimed to investigate the availability of respiratory medication and the extent of financially driven non-adherence in patients with COPD and asthma in Kyrgyzstan. A cross-sectional study was conducted in two regions of Kyrgyzstan. Patients with a physician- and spirometry confirmed diagnosis of asthma and/or COPD were included. The main outcomes were (1) availability of respiratory medication in hospitals and pharmacies, assessed by a survey, and (2) medication adherence, assessed by the Test of Adherence to Inhalers (TAI). Logistic regression analyses were used to identify predictors for adherence. Of the 300 participants (COPD: 264; asthma: 36), 68.9% were buying respiratory medication out-of-pocket. Of all patients visiting the hospital, almost half reported medication not being available. In pharmacies, this was 8%. Poor adherence prevailed over intermediate and good adherence (80.7% vs. 12.0% and 7.3%, respectively). Deliberate and erratic non-adherence behavior patterns were the most frequent (89.7% and 88.0%), followed by an unconscious non-adherent behavioral pattern (31.3%). In total, 68.3% reported a financial reason as a barrier to proper adherence. Low BMI was the only factor significantly associated with good adherence. In this LMIC population, poor medication availability was common and 80% were poorly adherent. Erratic and deliberate non-adherent behaviors were the most common pattern and financial barriers play a role in over two-thirds of the population.

Revisiting the four core functions (4Cs) of primary care: operational definitions and complexities.

BACKGROUND: The four primary care (PC) core functions (the '4Cs', ie, first contact, comprehensiveness, coordination and continuity) are essential for good quality primary healthcare and their achievement leads to lower costs, less inequality and better population health. However, their broad definitions have led to variations in their assessment, in the innovations implemented to improve these functions and ultimately in their performance. OBJECTIVES: To update and operationalise the 4Cs' definitions by using a literature review and analysis of enhancement strategies, and to identify innovations that may lead to their enhancement. METHODS: Narrative, descriptive analysis of the 4Cs definitions, coming from PC international reports and organisations, to identify measurable features for each of these functions. Additionally, we performed an electronic search and analysis of enhancement strategies to improve these four Cs, to explore how the 4Cs inter-relate. RESULTS: Specific operational elements for first contact include modality of contact, and conditions for which PC should be approached; for comprehensiveness, scope of services and spectrum of population needs; for coordination, links between PC and higher levels of care and social/community-based services, and workforce managing transitions and for continuity, type, level and context of continuity. Several innovations like enrolment, digital health technologies and new or enhanced PC provider's roles, simultaneously influenced two or more of the 4Cs. CONCLUSION: Providing clear, well-defined operational elements for these 4Cs to measure their achievement and improve the way they function, and identifying the complex network of interactions among them, should contribute to the field in a way that supports efforts at practice innovation to optimise the processes and outcomes in PC.

Clinical Characteristics, Treatment Patterns and Economic Burden of COPD in Kyrgyzstan: A FRESH AIR Study.

BACKGROUND: COPD prevalence and mortality in Kyrgyzstan are high. Data on clinical and economic impact of COPD in Kyrgyzstan are scarce. This study was part of the FRESH AIR research project that focused on prevention, diagnosis and treatment of chronic lung diseases in low-resource settings. AIM: We aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics, treatment patterns and economic burden of COPD in Kyrgyzstan. METHODS: A representative sample of patients with a spirometry-confirmed diagnosis of COPD was included. All patients were registered in one of the five major hospitals in Kyrgyzstan. Patients were surveyed on COPD risk factors, health-care utilization and patient reported outcomes (CCQ, MRC). Associations with high symptom burden (MRC score ≥4) and cost were assessed using logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 306 patients were included with mean age 62.1 (SD: 11.2), 61.4% being male, mean BMI 26.9 (SD: 5.2) and mean monthly income $85.1 (SD: 75.4). Biomass was used for heating and cooking by 71.2% and 52.0%. Current and ex-smokers accounted 14.1% and 32%. Mean FEV1 was 46% (SD: 12.8), 71.9% had COPD GOLD III-IV and most frequent co-morbidities were hypertension (25.2%), diabetes (5.6%) and heart diseases (4.6%). Mean CCQ score was 2.0 (SD: 0.9) and MRC score 3.7 (SD: 0.9). Yearly mean number of hospital days due to COPD was 10.1 (SD: 3.9). Total annual per-patient costs of reimbursed health-care utilization ($107) and co-payments ($224, ie, 22% of patients' annual income) were $331. We found that only GOLD IV and hypertension were significantly associated with high symptom burden. Exacerbations and hypertension were significantly associated with high cost. CONCLUSION: The clinical and economic burden of COPD on patients and the government in Kyrgyzstan is considerable. Notably, almost half of interviewed patients were current or ex-smokers and biomass exposure was high.

Attitudes Toward Health, Healthcare, and eHealth of People With a Low Socioeconomic Status: A Community-Based Participatory Approach.

Low socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with a higher prevalence of unhealthy lifestyles compared to a high SES. Health interventions that promote a healthy lifestyle, like eHealth solutions, face limited adoption in low SES groups. To improve the adoption of eHealth interventions, their alignment with the target group's attitudes is crucial. This study investigated the attitudes of people with a low SES toward health, healthcare, and eHealth. We adopted a mixed-method community-based participatory research approach with 23 members of a community center in a low SES neighborhood in the city of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. We conducted a first set of interviews and analyzed these using a grounded theory approach resulting in a group of themes. These basic themes' representative value was validated and refined by an online questionnaire involving a different sample of 43 participants from multiple community centers in the same neighborhood. We executed three focus groups to validate and contextualize the results. We identified two general attitudes based on nine profiles toward health, healthcare, and eHealth. The first general attitude, optimistically engaged, embodied approximately half our sample and involved light-heartedness toward health, loyalty toward healthcare, and eagerness to adopt eHealth. The second general attitude, doubtfully disadvantaged, represented roughly a quarter of our sample and was related to feeling encumbered toward health, feeling disadvantaged within healthcare, and hesitance toward eHealth adoption. The resulting attitudes strengthen the knowledge of the motivation and behavior of people with low SES regarding their health. Our results indicate that negative health attitudes are not as evident as often claimed. Nevertheless, intervention developers should still be mindful of differentiating life situations, motivations, healthcare needs, and eHealth expectations. Based on our findings, we recommend eHealth should fit into the person's daily life, ensure personal communication, be perceived usable and useful, adapt its communication to literacy level and life situation, allow for meaningful self-monitoring and embody self-efficacy enhancing strategies.

"At least someone thinks I'm doing well": a real-world evaluation of the quit-smoking app StopCoach for lower socio-economic status smokers.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is more prevalent and persistent among lower socio-economic status (SES) compared with higher-SES groups, and contributes greatly to SES-based health inequities. Few interventions exist that effectively help lower-SES smokers quit. This study evaluated "De StopCoach", a mobile phone delivered eHealth intervention targeted at lower-SES smokers based on the evidence-based StopAdvisor, in a real-world setting (five municipalities) in The Netherlands in 2019-2020. METHOD: We conducted individual semi-structured interviews with project leaders, healthcare professionals, and participating smokers (N = 22), and examined log data from the app (N = 235). For practical reasons, SES of app users was not measured. Qualitative data were analysed using the Framework Approach, with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) as theoretical models. RESULTS: Qualitative data showed that factors from the Intervention and Setting domains were most important for the implementation. StopCoach seemed suitable for lower-SES smokers in terms of performance and effort expectancy, especially when integrated with regular smoking cessation counseling (SCC). Key barriers to implementation of the app were limited integration of the app in SCC programs in practice, difficulty experienced by project leaders and healthcare professionals to engage the local community, and barriers to SCC more generally (e.g., perceived resistance to quitting in patients) that prevented healthcare professionals from offering the app to smokers. Quantitative data showed that 48% of app users continued using the app after the preparation phase and pre-quit day, and that 33% of app users had attempted to quit. Both app adherence and quit attempts were more likely if smokers also received SCC from a professional coach. Posthoc analyses suggest that adherence is related to higher likelihood of a quit attempt among participants with and without a professional coach. CONCLUSIONS: Smokers, healthcare professionals and project leaders indicated in the interviews that the StopCoach app would work best when combined with SCC. It also appears from app log that app adherence and quit attempts by app users can be facilitated by combining the app with face-to-face SCC. As such, blended care appears promising for helping individual smokers quit, as it combines the best of regular SCC and eHealth. Further research on blended care for lower-SES smokers is needed.

Blended Self-Management Interventions to Reduce Disease Burden in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Asthma: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma have a high prevalence and disease burden. Blended self-management interventions, which combine eHealth with face-to-face interventions, can help reduce the disease burden. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to examine the effectiveness of blended self-management interventions on health-related effectiveness and process outcomes for people with COPD or asthma. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, COCHRANE Library, Emcare, and Embase were searched in December 2018 and updated in November 2020. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) 2 tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 15 COPD and 7 asthma randomized controlled trials were included in this study. The meta-analysis of COPD studies found that the blended intervention showed a small improvement in exercise capacity (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.48; 95% CI 0.10-0.85) and a significant improvement in the quality of life (QoL; SMD 0.81; 95% CI 0.11-1.51). Blended intervention also reduced the admission rate (relative ratio [RR] 0.61; 95% CI 0.38-0.97). In the COPD systematic review, regarding the exacerbation frequency, both studies found that the intervention reduced exacerbation frequency (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.26-0.56). A large effect was found on BMI (d=0.81; 95% CI 0.25-1.34); however, the effect was inconclusive because only 1 study was included. Regarding medication adherence, 2 of 3 studies found a moderate effect (d=0.73; 95% CI 0.50-0.96), and 1 study reported a mixed effect. Regarding self-management ability, 1 study reported a large effect (d=1.15; 95% CI 0.66-1.62), and no effect was reported in that study. No effect was found on other process outcomes. The meta-analysis of asthma studies found that blended intervention had a small improvement in lung function (SMD 0.40; 95% CI 0.18-0.62) and QoL (SMD 0.36; 95% CI 0.21-0.50) and a moderate improvement in asthma control (SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.40-0.93). A large effect was found on BMI (d=1.42; 95% CI 0.28-2.42) and exercise capacity (d=1.50; 95% CI 0.35-2.50); however, 1 study was included per outcome. There was no effect on other outcomes. Furthermore, the majority of the 22 studies showed some concerns about the ROB, and the quality of evidence varied. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COPD, the blended self-management interventions had mixed effects on health-related outcomes, with the strongest evidence found for exercise capacity, QoL, and admission rate. Furthermore, the review suggested that the interventions resulted in small effects on lung function and QoL and a moderate effect on asthma control in patients with asthma. There is some evidence for the effectiveness of blended self-management interventions for patients with COPD and asthma; however, more research is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019119894; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=119894.