A sociotechnical framework to assess patient-facing eHealth tools: results of a modified Delphi process.

Among the thousands of eHealth tools available, the vast majority do not get past pilot phases because they cannot prove value, and only a few have been systematically assessed. Although multiple eHealth assessment frameworks have been developed, these efforts face multiple challenges. This study aimed to address some of these challenges by validating and refining an initial list of 55 assessment criteria based on previous frameworks through a two-round modified Delphi process with in-between rounds of interviews. The expert panel (n = 57) included participants from 18 countries and 9 concerned parties. A consensus was reached on 46 criteria that were classified into foundational and contextual criteria. The 36 foundational criteria focus on evaluating the eHealth tool itself and were grouped into nine clusters: technical aspects, clinical utility and safety, usability and human centricity, functionality, content, data management, endorsement, maintenance, and developer. The 10 contextual criteria focus on evaluating the factors that vary depending on the context the tool is being evaluated for and were grouped into seven clusters: data-protection compliance, safety regulatory compliance, interoperability and data integration, cultural requirements, affordability, cost-benefit, and implementability. The classification of criteria into foundational and contextual helps us assess not only the quality of an isolated tool, but also its potential fit in a specific setting. Criteria subscales may be particularly relevant when determining the strengths and weaknesses of the tool being evaluated. This granularity enables different concerned parties to make informed decisions about which tools to consider according to their specific needs and priorities.

Patients' preference regarding inpatient versus outpatient setting - A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Continuously rising healthcare costs have led to financial pressure on the healthcare systems. One of the trends for the reduction of costs is the shift towards outpatient treatment. However, research has not focused on the patients' preferences regarding inpatient versus outpatient treatment settings. The purpose of this review is to examine existing studies surveying patients' preferences related to inpatient and outpatient treatment methods. The aim is to find out whether patients' wishes were queried and considered in the decision-making process. DESIGN: Therefore, the reviewers performed a systematic approach utilizing the PRISMA standards and screened 1'646 articles out of 5'606 articles from the systematic search. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The screening resulted in 4 studies that analyzed exclusively the patient's choice of treatment setting. The search showed an apparent paucity of current literature and highlights the need for further research. The authors' recommendation includes a better involvement of patients in the decision-making process as well as adding preferred treatment settings to advanced treatment directives and patient satisfaction questionnaires.

Assessing the Quality and Impact of eHealth Tools: Systematic Literature Review and Narrative Synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Technological advancements have opened the path for many technology providers to easily develop and introduce eHealth tools to the public. The use of these tools is increasingly recognized as a critical quality driver in health care; however, choosing a quality tool from the myriad of tools available for a specific health need does not come without challenges. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to systematically investigate the literature to understand the different approaches and criteria used to assess the quality and impact of eHealth tools by considering sociotechnical factors (from technical, social, and organizational perspectives). METHODS: A structured search was completed following the participants, intervention, comparators, and outcomes framework. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and ProQuest databases for studies published between January 2012 and January 2022 in English, which yielded 675 results, of which 40 (5.9%) studies met the inclusion criteria. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were followed to ensure a systematic process. Extracted data were analyzed using NVivo (QSR International), with a thematic analysis and narrative synthesis of emergent themes. RESULTS: Similar measures from the different papers, frameworks, and initiatives were aggregated into 36 unique criteria grouped into 13 clusters. Using the sociotechnical approach, we classified the relevant criteria into technical, social, and organizational assessment criteria. Technical assessment criteria were grouped into 5 clusters: technical aspects, functionality, content, data management, and design. Social assessment criteria were grouped into 4 clusters: human centricity, health outcomes, visible popularity metrics, and social aspects. Organizational assessment criteria were grouped into 4 clusters: sustainability and scalability, health care organization, health care context, and developer. CONCLUSIONS: This review builds on the growing body of research that investigates the criteria used to assess the quality and impact of eHealth tools and highlights the complexity and challenges facing these initiatives. It demonstrates that there is no single framework that is used uniformly to assess the quality and impact of eHealth tools. It also highlights the need for a more comprehensive approach that balances the social, organizational, and technical assessment criteria in a way that reflects the complexity and interdependence of the health care ecosystem and is aligned with the factors affecting users' adoption to ensure uptake and adherence in the long term.

Serious Games and Gamification: Health Care Workers' Experience, Attitudes, and Knowledge.

OBJECTIVE: With the rapid advancement of digital technology due to COVID-19, the health care field is embracing the use of digital technologies for learning, which presents an opportunity for teaching methods such as serious games to be developed and improved. Technology offers more options for these educational approaches. The goal of this study was to assess health care workers' experiences, attitudes, and knowledge regarding serious games in training. METHODS: The convenience sample consisted of 223 participants from the specialties of internal medicine and psychiatry who responded to questions regarding sociodemographic data, experience, attitudes, and knowledge regarding serious games. This study used an ordinal regression model to analyze the relationship between knowledge, attitudes, and experiences and the idea or wish to implement serious games. RESULTS: The majority of healthcare workers were not familiar with serious games or gamification. The results show gender and age differences regarding familiarity and willingness to use serious games. With increasing age, the respondents preferred conventional and traditional learning methods to playful teaching elements; younger generations were significantly more motivated than older generations when envisioning using elements of serious games in the future. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has encouraged the use of new technologies and digitalization. This study describes positive attitudes toward serious games, mainly in younger people working in health care. Serious games present an opportunity to develop new approaches for postgraduate medical teachings and continuing medical education.

From Testers to Cocreators-the Value of and Approaches to Successful Patient Engagement in the Development of eHealth Solutions: Qualitative Expert Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: Research has shown that patient engagement is most commonly done at the beginning of research or to test readily available prototypes and less commonly done in other phases such as the execution phases. Previous studies have reported that patients are usually assigned a consultative rather than a decision-making role in health service planning and evaluation. OBJECTIVE: This study had 2 objectives: to better understand the challenges and opportunities in the inclusion of patients in the development of eHealth technologies and ideas on how to overcome the identified gaps and to create a research-based end-to-end practical blueprint that can guide the relevant stakeholders to successfully engage patients as cocreators in all human-centered design phases rather than mere testers of preplanned prototypes. METHODS: Key informant interviews were conducted using in-depth semistructured interviews with 20 participants from 6 countries across Europe. This was followed by a focus group to validate the initial findings. Participants encompassed all the relevant stakeholder groups including patient experts, eHealth experts, health technology providers, clinicians, pharma executives, and health insurance experts. RESULTS: This study shows that engaging patients in eHealth development can help provide different types of value; namely, identifying unmet needs, better usability and desirability, better fit into the patient journey, better adoption and stickiness, better health outcomes, advocacy and trust, a sense of purpose, and better health equity and access. However, the participants agreed that patients are usually engaged too late in the development process, mostly assuming a sounding role in testing a ready-made prototype. The justification for these gaps in engagement is driven by some prominent barriers, notably compliance risks, patient-related factors, power dynamics, patient engagement as lip service, poor value perception, lack of resources, mistrust, and inflexibility. On the positive side, the participants also reflected on facilitators for better patient engagement; for instance, engaging through engagement partners, novel approaches such as the rise of professional patient experts, embedding patients in development teams, expectation management, and professional moderation services. CONCLUSIONS: Overcoming the current gaps in patient engagement in eHealth development requires consolidated efforts from all stakeholders in a complex health care ecosystem. The shift toward more patient-driven eHealth development requires education and awareness; frameworks to monitor and evaluate the value of patient engagement; regulatory clarity and simplification; platforms to facilitate patient access and identification; patient incentivization, transparency, and trust; and a mindset shift toward value-based health care.

Second Opinions in Psychiatry: A Review.

BACKGROUND: Although second opinions are rather restricted to the surgical disciplines, they have become more and more important to the health system in the last 20 years. The demand has been triggered by rising health costs and the economization of the field. The Internet has also made a considerable contribution to the demand for patient-initiated second opinions. Given these developments, it is surprising that second opinions have not become more important in the field of psychiatry. This article highlights the special situation of second opinions in psychiatry, discusses possible barriers to the adoption of second opinions in psychiatry, and the potential for greater use of second opinions in this field. OBJECTIVE: In psychiatry, second opinions have been neglected by the typical drivers of innovations in health care, including insurers and other commercial drivers as well as psychiatrists and patients themselves. This review identifies current barriers to widespread adoption of second opinions in psychiatric practice, discusses the benefits of second opinions that have been demonstrated in other disciplines, and outlines the potential gains to be realized through use of second opinions in psychiatry. METHODS: Literature in the area was reviewed through a search of the main medical databases. This literature review was supported by in-depth interviews with health care personnel and insurers. CONCLUSIONS: Second opinions are rarely obtained in psychiatry and there is little literature on this subject. The stigmatization of psychiatric disorders and patients and the uniqueness of the patient-doctor relationship in psychiatry, especially in psychotherapeutic care, may pose considerable obstacles to the use of second opinions in this field. In addition, more stakeholders, such as social workers, government agencies and regulators, health care and disability insurers, and social security agencies, are involved in the mental health compared with the somatic health sector, which may make it more difficult to achieve a coordinated approach in psychiatric care. However, we have found no convincingly good reason why second opinions have not been at least discussed in psychiatry. Psychiatry could benefit from ongoing discussions concerning the outcomes of second opinions in other medical disciplines.