The impact of the involvement of a healthcare professional on the usage of an eHealth platform: a retrospective observational COPD study.

BACKGROUND: Ehealth platforms, since the outbreak of COVID-19 more important than ever, can support self-management in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The aim of this observational study is to explore the impact of healthcare professional involvement on the adherence of patients to an eHealth platform. We evaluated the usage of an eHealth platform by patients who used the platform individually compared with patients in a blended setting, where healthcare professionals were involved. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, log data from September 2011 until January 2018 were extracted from the eHealth platform Curavista. Patients with COPD who completed at least one Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) were included for analyses (n = 299). In 57% (n = 171) of the patients, the eHealth platform was used in a blended setting, either in hospital (n = 128) or primary care (n = 29). To compare usage of the platform between patients who used the platform independently or with a healthcare professional, we applied propensity score matching and performed adjusted Poisson regression analysis on CCQ-submission rate. RESULTS: Using the eHealth platform in a blended setting was associated with a 3.25 higher CCQ-submission rate compared to patients using the eHealth platform independently. Within the blended setting, the CCQ-submission rate was 1.83 higher in the hospital care group than in the primary care group. CONCLUSION: It is shown that COPD patients used the platform more frequently in a blended care setting compared to patients who used the eHealth platform independently, adjusted for age, sex and disease burden. Blended care seems essential for adherence to eHealth programs in COPD, which in turn may improve self-management.

Adherence to Web-Based Self-Assessments in Long-Term Direct-to-Patient Research: Two-Year Study of Multiple Sclerosis Patients.

BACKGROUND: Direct-to-patient research via Web-based questionnaires is increasingly being used. Missed data or delayed reporting of data may negatively affect the quality of study results. It is insufficiently known to what degree patients adhere to agreed self-assessment schedule over the long term and whether questionnaires are filled out in a timely manner. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate patients' adherence to a self-assessment schedule with low-frequency long questionnaires versus that with a high-frequency short questionnaire. METHODS: In this study, the 36-item MS Impact Profile (MSIP) questionnaire measured (perceived) disabilities and the 54-item MS Quality of Life-54 (MSQoL-54) questionnaire measured health-related quality of life at 6-month intervals. Additionally, the 2-item Medication and Adherence (MA) questionnaire documented medication and adherence to disease-modifying medication every month. An experienced MS nurse assessed the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score via phone. For both the self-assessment schedules, we calculated the percentage of patients who had completed all the questionnaires in the first 2 years (completion adherence), the percentage of patients who completed all the questionnaires within set time frames (interval adherence), the relationship between adherence and the EDSS score, and the timing of EDSS assessment. RESULTS: Of the 331 patients who enrolled themselves, 301 patients completed at least one questionnaire. At month six (M6), M12, M18, and M24, the MSIP was completed by 83.4% (251/301), 71.8% (216/301), 68.1% (205/301), and 58.5% (176/301) of the patients, respectively; the MSQoL-54 by 82.1% (247/301), 71.8% (216/301), 66.8% (201/301), and 57.1% (172/301), respectively; and the MA questionnaire by 80.1% (241/301), 70.4% (212/301), 62.1% (187/301), and 53.5% (161/301), respectively. For the MSIP, 56.8% (171/301) of the patients were 2-year completion adherent; 55.5% (167/301) and 53.5% (161/301) of the patients were completion adherent for the MSQoL-54 and MA questionnaires, respectively. Whereas 85.5% (142/166) of the patients were interval adherent for the MSIP and MSQoL-54, 25.5% (41/161) were interval adherent for the MA questionnaire, with 73.9% (119/161) exceeding the maximum MA monthly interassessment interval. Completion adherence for the monthly short MA questionnaire was higher in patients with moderately high disability (EDSS 5.0-5.5) than for those with no or minimal disability (EDSS 0-2.5) (OR 5.47, 95% CI 1.08-27.69; P=.040). Completion adherence was also higher in patients with EDSS assessment within 6 months after baseline than in those with later assessment (OR 1.810, 95% CI 0.999-3.280; P=.050). CONCLUSIONS: The 2-year completion adherence to Web-based self-assessments did not differ between the low-frequency long questionnaires and a high-frequency short questionnaire, but the interval adherence was substantially higher for the low-frequency long questionnaires. Personal contact with a member of the research team regarding a clinically relevant professional-reported outcome early in the study might positively affect the long-term completion adherence in direct-to-patient studies.

Online Tool for the Assessment of the Burden of COVID-19 in Patients: Development Study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 has been felt worldwide, yet we are still unsure about its full impact. One of the gaps in our current knowledge relates to the long-term mental and physical impact of the infection on affected individuals. The COVID-19 pandemic hit the Netherlands at the end of February 2020, resulting in over 900,000 people testing positive for the virus, over 24,000 hospitalizations, and over 13,000 deaths by the end of January 2021. Although many patients recover from the acute phase of the disease, experience with other virus outbreaks has raised concerns regarding possible late sequelae of the infection. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop an online tool to assess the long-term burden of COVID-19 in patients. METHODS: In this paper, we describe the process of development, assessment, programming, implementation, and use of this new tool: the assessment of burden of COVID-19 (ABCoV) tool. This new tool is based on the well-validated assessment of burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease tool. RESULTS: As of January 2021, the new ABCoV tool has been used in an online patient platform by more than 2100 self-registered patients and another 400 patients in a hospital setting, resulting in over 2500 patients. These patients have submitted the ABCoV questionnaire 3926 times. Among the self-registered patients who agreed to have their data analyzed (n=1898), the number of females was high (n=1153, 60.7%), many were medically diagnosed with COVID-19 (n=892, 47.0%), and many were relatively young with only 7.4% (n=141) being older than 60 years. Of all patients that actually used the tool (n=1517), almost one-quarter (n=356, 23.5%) used the tool twice, and only a small group (n=76, 5.0%) used the tool 6 times. CONCLUSIONS: This new ABCoV tool has been broadly and repeatedly used, and may provide insight into the perceived burden of disease, provide direction for personalized aftercare for people post COVID-19, and help us to be prepared for possible future recurrences.