Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2020

01-12-2020 | Pituitary Adenoma | Research article

Content and system development of a digital patient-provider communication tool to support shared decision making in chronic health care: InvolveMe

Authors: Berit Seljelid, Cecilie Varsi, Lise Solberg Nes, Aud-E Stenehjem, Jens Bollerslev, Elin Børøsund

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Chronic conditions present major health problems, affecting an increasing number of individuals who experience a variety of symptoms that impact their health related quality of life. Digital tools can be of support in chronic conditions, potentially improving patient-provider communication, promoting shared decision making for treatment and care, and possibly even improving patient outcomes. This study aimed to develop a digital tool for patient-provider communication in chronic health care settings and describes the data collection and subsequent content and software development of the InvolveMe tool. InvolveMe will provide patients with the opportunity to report symptoms and preferences to their health care providers (HCP), and to use secure messaging to interact with the HCPs.

Method

The study employed a combination of interviews with patients with chronic conditions and focus groups with HCPs, examining experiences with chronic conditions and the potential use of a digital tool for support. Participants were recruited from two outpatient clinics at a university hospital. Data collected from interviews and focus groups were analysed using thematic analysis. Content and software development was informed by the data collection and by tool development workshops.

Results

Analyses from interviews with patients (n = 14) and focus groups with HCPs (n = 11) generated three main themes: 1) Making symptoms and challenges visible, 2) Mastering a new life, and 3) Digital opportunities for follow-up. Each main theme generated separate subthemes. Theme 1 and 2 gave input for content development of the symptom and needs assessment part of the tool, while theme 3 provided ideas for the software development of the InvolveMe tool. Tool development workshops with patients (n = 6) and HCPs (n = 6) supplemented the development.

Conclusions

A digital tool such as InvolveMe has the potential to support shared decision making for patients with chronic health conditions. Through integration with an existing patient portal such a tool can provide opportunities for meaningful interactions and communication between patients and HCP’s, particularly with regards to symptoms, needs and preferences for care.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Burstrom K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F. Health-related quality of life by disease and socio-economic group in the general population in Sweden. Health Policy. 2001;55(1):51–69.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Saarni SI, Harkanen T, Sintonen H, Suvisaari J, Koskinen S, Aromaa A, et al. The impact of 29 chronic conditions on health-related quality of life: a general population survey in Finland using 15D and EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2006;15(8):1403–14.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Heyworth IT, Hazell ML, Linehan MF, Frank TL. How do common chronic conditions affect health-related quality of life? Br J Gen Pract. 2009;59(568):e353–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Wu M, Brazier JE, Kearns B, Relton C, Smith C, Cooper CL. Examining the impact of 11 long-standing health conditions on health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D in a general population sample. Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16(2):141–51.PubMedCrossRef
5.
May CR, Cummings A, Myall M, Harvey J, Pope C, Griffiths P, et al. Experiences of long-term life-limiting conditions among patients and carers: what can we learn from a meta-review of systematic reviews of qualitative studies of chronic heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic kidney disease? BMJ Open. 2016;6(10):e011694.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Aiyegbusi OL, Kyte D, Cockwell P, Marshall T, Gheorghe A, Keeley T, et al. Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in adult patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0179733.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
Lubberding S, van Uden-Kraan CF, Te Velde EA, Cuijpers P, Leemans CR, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM. Improving access to supportive cancer care through an eHealth application: a qualitative needs assessment among cancer survivors. J Clin Nurs. 2015;24(9–10):1367–79.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Basch E, Iasonos A, McDonough T, Barz A, Culkin A, Kris MG, et al. Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute common terminology criteria for adverse events: results of a questionnaire-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(11):903–9.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Basch E, Jia X, Heller G, Barz A, Sit L, Fruscione M, et al. Adverse symptom event reporting by patients vs clinicians: relationships with clinical outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(23):1624–32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Laugsand EA, Sprangers MA, Bjordal K, Skorpen F, Kaasa S, Klepstad P. Health care providers underestimate symptom intensities of cancer patients: a multicenter European study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:104.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
Vistad I, Cvancarova M, Fossa SD, Kristensen GB. Postradiotherapy morbidity in long-term survivors after locally advanced cervical cancer: how well do physicians' assessments agree with those of their patients? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71(5):1335–42.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Friis K, Lasgaard M, Osborne RH, Maindal HT. Gaps in understanding health and engagement with healthcare providers across common long-term conditions: a population survey of health literacy in 29,473 Danish citizens. BMJ Open. 2016;6(1):e009627.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
Kotronoulas G, Kearney N, Maguire R, Harrow A, Di Domenico D, Croy S, et al. What is the value of the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(14):1480–501.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Chen J, Ou L, Hollis SJ. A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:211.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
Montori VM, Gafni A, Charles C. A shared treatment decision-making approach between patients with chronic conditions and their clinicians: the case of diabetes. Health Expect. 2006;9(1):25–36.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
Gionfriddo MR, Leppin AL, Brito JP, Leblanc A, Shah ND, Montori VM. Shared decision-making and comparative effectiveness research for patients with chronic conditions: an urgent synergy for better health. J Comp Eff Res. 2013;2(6):595–603.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Hargraves I, LeBlanc A, Shah ND, Montori VM. Shared decision making: the need for patient-clinician conversation, not just information. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(4):627–9.CrossRef
18.
Di Blasi Z, Harkness E, Ernst E, Georgiou A, Kleijnen J. Influence of context effects on health outcomes: a systematic review. Lancet. 2001;357(9258):757–62.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:Cd001431.PubMed
20.
Wieringa TH, Rodriguez-Gutierrez R, Spencer-Bonilla G, de Wit M, Ponce OJ, Sanchez-Herrera MF, et al. Decision aids that facilitate elements of shared decision making in chronic illnesses: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):121.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Kunneman M, Montori VM, Castaneda-Guarderas A, Hess EP. What is shared decision making? (and what it is not). Acad Emerg Med. 2016;23(12):1320–4.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Jacobs RJ, Lou JQ, Ownby RL, Caballero J. A systematic review of eHealth interventions to improve health literacy. Health Informatics J. 2016;22(2):81–98.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Goldzweig CL, Towfigh AA, Paige NM, Orshansky G, Haggstrom DA, Beroes JM, et al. Systematic review. Secure messaging between providers and patients, and patients' access for their own medical record: Evidence on health outcomes, satisfaction, efficiency and attitudes. Whashingthon (DC): Department of Veteran Affairs (US); 2012.
24.
Heyn L, Ruland CM, Finset A. Effects of an interactive tailored patient assessment tool on eliciting and responding to cancer patients' cues and concerns in clinical consultations with physicians and nurses. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86(2):158–65.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Johansen MA, Berntsen GK, Schuster T, Henriksen E, Horsch A. Electronic symptom reporting between patient and provider for improved health care service quality: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. part 2: methodological quality and effects. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(5):e126.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
Ruland CM, Holte HH, Roislien J, Heaven C, Hamilton GA, Kristiansen J, et al. Effects of a computer-supported interactive tailored patient assessment tool on patient care, symptom distress, and patients' need for symptom management support: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010;17(4):403–10.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
Borosund E, Cvancarova M, Moore SM, Ekstedt M, Ruland CM. Comparing effects in regular practice of E-communication and web-based self-management support among breast Cancer patients: preliminary results from a randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(12):e295.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
Kruse CS, Argueta DA, Lopez L, Nair A. Patient and provider attitudes toward the use of patient portals for the management of chronic disease: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2):e40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
Ruland CM, White T, Stevens M, Fanciullo G, Khilani SM. Effects of a computerized system to support shared decision making in symptom management of cancer patients: preliminary results. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10(6):573–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
30.
Heyn L, Finset A, Eide H, Ruland CM. Effects of an interactive tailored patient assessment on patient-clinician communication in cancer care. Psychooncology. 2013;22(1):89–96.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Whitehead L, Seaton P. The effectiveness of self-management Mobile phone and tablet apps in long-term condition management: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(5):e97.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
de Jong CC, Ros WJ, Schrijvers G. The effects on health behavior and health outcomes of internet-based asynchronous communication between health providers and patients with a chronic condition: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(1):e19.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
Jagosh J, Macaulay AC, Pluye P, Salsberg J, Bush PL, Henderson J, et al. Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice. Milbank Q. 2012;90(2):311–46.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
Robertson T, Wagner I. Ethics: engagement, representation and politics-in-action. In: Simonsen J, Robertson T, editors. Routledge international handbook of Participartory design. New York: Routledge; 2013. p. 64–84.
35.
Grisot M, Hanseth O, Thorseng A. Innovation Of, In, On Infrastructures: Articulating the Role of Architecture in Information Infrastructure Evolution. J Ass Inf Systems. 2014;15(Special Issue (4)):197–219.
36.
National Institute for Health and Care Exellence. Renal replacement therapy and conservative management. NICE clinical guideline 107. NICE 2018.
37.
Joustra SD, Thijs RD, van den Berg R, van Dijk M, Pereira AM, Lammers GJ, et al. Alterations in diurnal rhythmicity in patients treated for nonfunctioning pituitary macroadenoma: a controlled study and literature review. Eur J Endocrinol. 2014;171(2):217–28.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Andela CD, Niemeijer ND, Scharloo M, Tiemensma J, Kanagasabapathy S, Pereira AM, et al. Towards a better quality of life (QoL) for patients with pituitary diseases: results from a focus group study exploring QoL. Pituitary. 2015;18(1):86–100.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Andela CD, Scharloo M, Ramondt S, Tiemensma J, Husson O, Llahana S, et al. The development and validation of the Leiden bother and needs questionnaire for patients with pituitary disease: the LBNQ-pituitary. Pituitary. 2016;19(3):293–302.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
Amro A, Waldum-Grevbo B, von der Lippe N, Brekke FB, Miaskowski C, Os I. Symptom clusters from Dialysis to renal transplantation: a five-year longitudinal study. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2016;51(3):512–9.CrossRef
41.
von der Lippe N, Waldum B, Brekke FB, Amro AA, Reisaeter AV, Os I. From dialysis to transplantation: a 5-year longitudinal study on self-reported quality of life. BMC Nephrol. 2014;15:191.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
Andela CD, Scharloo M, Pereira AM, Kaptein AA, Biermasz NR. Quality of life (QoL) impairments in patients with a pituitary adenoma: a systematic review of QoL studies. Pituitary. 2015;18(5):752–76.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3(1):13.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
44.
Morgan D. Focus group interviewing. In: Gubrium JF, Holstein JA, editors. Handbook of interview research: context and method. Thousands Oaks: Sage; 2002. p. 141–59.
45.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRef
46.
47.
Spencer D. Card sorting: Designing Usable Categories. 1st ed. Brooklyn: Rosenfeld Media; 2009.
48.
Qudah B, Luetsch K. The influence of mobile health applications on patient - healthcare provider relationships: a systematic, narrative review. Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102(6):1080–9.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Zimmermann C, Del Piccolo L, Finset A. Cues and concerns by patients in medical consultations: a literature review. Psychol Bull. 2007;133(3):438–63.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Mjaaland TA, Finset A, Jensen BF, Gulbrandsen P. Physicians' responses to patients' expressions of negative emotions in hospital consultations: a video-based observational study. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84(3):332–7.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Adams K, Cimino JE, Arnold RM, Anderson WG. Why should I talk about emotion? Communication patterns associated with physician discussion of patient expressions of negative emotion in hospital admission encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;89(1):44–50.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
Rathert C, Wyrwich MD, Boren SA. Patient-centered care and outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(4):351–79.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Heyn L, Finset A, Ruland CM. Talking about feelings and worries in cancer consultations: the effects of an interactive tailored symptom assessment on source, explicitness, and timing of emotional cues and concerns. Cancer Nurs. 2013;36(2):E20–30.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Kelley JM, Kraft-Todd G, Schapira L, Kossowsky J, Riess H. The influence of the patient-clinician relationship on healthcare outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e94207.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
55.
Riedl D, Schussler G. The influence of doctor-patient communication on health outcomes: a systematic review. Z Psychosom Med Psychother. 2017;63(2):131–50.PubMed
56.
Ruland CM, Andersen T, Jeneson A, Moore S, Grimsbo GH, Borosund E, Ellison MC. Effects of an internet support system to assist cancer patients in reducing symptom distress: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer Nurs. 2013;36(1):6–17.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Content and system development of a digital patient-provider communication tool to support shared decision making in chronic health care: InvolveMe
Authors
Berit Seljelid
Cecilie Varsi
Lise Solberg Nes
Aud-E Stenehjem
Jens Bollerslev
Elin Børøsund
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-1065-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2020 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Improving shared decision-making in vascular surgery by implementing decision support tools: study protocol for the stepped-wedge cluster-randomised OVIDIUS trial

Research article

The emerging COVID-19 research: dynamic and regularly updated science maps and analyses

Research article

Myocardial infarction evaluation from stopping time decision toward interoperable algorithmic states in reinforcement learning

Technical Advance

Sparse multi-output Gaussian processes for online medical time series prediction

Research article

The use of mobile phone functionalities by patients with asthma and their desire to use for self-care purposes

Research article

A comparative study on the prediction of the BP artificial neural network model and the ARIMA model in the incidence of AIDS