RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Informal carers play a major role in supporting relatives and friends who are sick, disabled, or frail. Access to information, guidance, and support that are relevant to the lives and circumstances of carers is critical to carers feeling supported in their role. When unmet, this need is known to adversely affect carer resilience and well-being. To address this problem, Care Companion was co-designed with current and former carers and stakeholders as a free-to-use, web-based resource to provide access to a broad range of tailored information, including links to local and national resources. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the real-world uptake and use of Care Companion in 1 region of England (with known carer population of approximately 100,000), with local health, community, and social care teams being asked to actively promote its use. METHODS: The study had a convergent parallel, mixed methods design and drew on the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework. Data included metrics from carers' use of Care Companion, surveys completed by users recruited through general practice, and interviews with carers and health and social care providers regarding their views about Care Companion and their response to it. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Interview data were analyzed thematically and synthesized to create overarching themes. The qualitative findings were used for in-depth exploration and interpretation of quantitative results. RESULTS: Despite awareness-raising activities by relevant health, social care, and community organizations, there was limited uptake with only 556 carers (0.87% of the known carer population of 100,000) registering to use Care Companion in total, with median of 2 (mean 7.2; mode 2) visits per registered user. Interviews with carers (n=29) and stakeholders (n=12) identified 7 key themes that influenced registration, use, and perceived value: stakeholders' signposting of carers to Care Companion, expectations about Care Companion, activity levels and conflicting priorities, experience of using Care Companion, relevance to personal circumstances, social isolation and networks, and experience with digital technology. Although many interviewed carers felt that it was potentially useful, few considered it as being of direct relevance to their own circumstances. For some, concerns about social isolation and lack of hands-on support were more pressing issues than the need for information. CONCLUSIONS: The gap between the enthusiastic views expressed by carers during Care Companion's co-design and the subsequent low level of uptake and user experience observed in this evaluation suggests that the co-design process may have lacked a sufficiently diverse set of viewpoints. Numerous factors were identified as contributing to Care Companion's level of use, some of which might have been anticipated during its co-design. More emphasis on the development and implementation, including continuing co-design support after deployment, may have supported increased use.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The use of internet videoconferencing in healthcare settings is widespread, reflecting the normalisation of this mode of communication in society and current healthcare policy. As the use of internet videoconferencing is growing, increasing numbers of reviews of literature are published. METHODS: The authors conducted a review of the existing reviews of literature relating to the use of internet videoconferencing for consultations between healthcare professionals and patients with long-term conditions in their own home. The review was followed with an assessment of United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines for patient care in the context of common long-term illnesses to examine where videoconferencing could be implemented in line with these recommendations. RESULTS: The review of reviews found no formal evidence in favour of or against the use of internet videoconferencing. Patients were satisfied with the use of videoconferencing but there was limited evidence that it led to a change in health outcomes. Evidence of healthcare professional satisfaction when using this mode of communication with patients was limited. The review of guidelines suggested a number of opportunities for adoption and expansion of internet videoconferencing. Implementing videoconferencing in line with current evidence for patient care could offer support and provide information on using a communication channel that suits individual patient needs and circumstances. The evidence base for videoconferencing is growing, but there is still a lack of data relating to cost, ethics and safety. CONCLUSIONS: While the current evidence base for internet videoconferencing is equivocal, it is likely to change as more research is undertaken and evidence published. With more videoconferencing services added in more contexts, research needs to explore how internet videoconferencing can be implemented in ways that it is valued by patients and clinicians, and how it can fit within organisational and technical infrastructure of the healthcare services.