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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 5/2018

Open Access 01-10-2018 | Original Research Article

The Parker Model: Applying a Qualitative Three-Step Approach to Optimally Utilize Input from Stakeholders When Introducing New Device Technologies in the Management of Chronic Rheumatic Diseases

Authors: Tanja S. Jørgensen, Marie Skougaard, Peter C. Taylor, Hans C. Asmussen, Anne Lee, Louise Klokker, Louise Svejstrup, Irina Mountian, Henrik Gudbergsen, Lars Erik Kristensen

Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Issue 5/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background and Objective

Qualitative methods such as semi-structured interviews and focus-groups are used to evaluate the applicability and relevance of device technologies in clinical practice, but when used alone, often lack generalizability. This study aimed to assess the face validity and feasibility of using a composite, three-step qualitative method (the Parker Model), to inform the development and implementation of ava®, an electromechanical device (e-Device) for subcutaneous self-administration of the biologic, certolizumab pegol (CZP), used to treat rheumatic diseases.

Methods

The Parker Model combines concept mapping (CM), participatory design (PD), and stakeholder evaluation (SE). CM, a structured group process, was used to identify patients’ opinions and concerns regarding the e-Device. Patients used this information in iterative PD sessions to create personal e-Device prototypes in cooperation with a designer and a healthcare professional. SE was performed based on semi-structured group and individual interviews with patients and disease-management stakeholders.

Results

The study recruited 14 patients, two doctors, two nurses, one medical secretary, and four other public servants. Three CM workshops revealed four key considerations: technical usability, physical design, concerns, and enthusiasm. Four personalized prototypes were developed during PD sessions. SE confirmed that the identified considerations were pivotal for the implementation and adaptation of the e-Device.

Conclusions

This study is the first to apply a composite, qualitative research model when introducing an e-Device for the treatment and management of rheumatic disease. Results show that input from patients and other stakeholders using the Parker Model can add value to the development and implementation of an e-Device.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Ford AC, Sandborn WJ, Khan KJ, Hanauer SB, Talley NJ, Moayyedi P. Efficacy of biological therapies in inflammatory bowel disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106(4):644–59 (quiz 60).CrossRefPubMed
2.
Singh JA, Saag KG, Bridges SL Jr, et al. 2015 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016;68(1):1–26.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
Bolge SC, Goren A, Tandon N. Reasons for discontinuation of subcutaneous biologic therapy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a patient perspective. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:121–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Borrás-Blasco J, Gracia-Pérez A, Casterá MD-E, Rosique-Robles JD, Abad J. Educational session as a tool to increase patient satisfaction of switching etanercept from the prefilled syringe to the autoinjection pen. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2013;13(8):1103–8.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zimmer PA, Braun LT, Fraser R, Hecht L, Kelliher F. Promoting success in self-injection: listening to patients. Medsurg Nurs Off J Acad Med Surg Nurses. 2015;24(4):279–82.
7.
Yeaw J, Benner JS, Walt JG, Sian S, Smith DB. Comparing adherence and persistence across 6 chronic medication classes. J Manag Care Pharm. 2009;15(9):728–40.PubMed
8.
Marengo MF, Suarez-Almazor ME. Improving treatment adherence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: what are the options? Int J Clin Rheumtol. 2015;10(5):345–56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Markiewicz K, van Til JA, IJzerman MJ. Medical devices early assessment methods: systematic literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(2):137–46.CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
Trochim W, Kane M. Concept mapping: an introduction to structured conceptualization in health care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2005;17(3):187–91.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Trochim WM, Cook JA, Setze RJ. Using concept mapping to develop a conceptual framework of staff’s views of a supported employment program for individuals with severe mental illness. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994;62(4):766–75.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Trochim WM, Linton R. Conceptualization for planning and evaluation. Eval Program Plann. 1986;9(4):289–308.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Crabtree BF, Miller WL. Using codes and code manuals—a template organizing style of interpretation. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, editors. Doing qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc; 1999. p. 163–77.
16.
Hansen MB, Vedung E. Theory-based stakeholder evaluation. Am J Eval. 2010;31(3):295–313.CrossRef
17.
Braun V, Clarke V. What can “thematic analysis” offer health and wellbeing researchers? Int J Qual Stud Health Well Being. 2014;9:26152.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Guest G, MacQueen KM, Namey EE. Applied thematic analysis. California: Sage; 2011.
19.
Osborne RH, Elsworth GR, Whitfield K. The Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ): an outcomes and evaluation measure for patient education and self-management interventions for people with chronic conditions. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;66(2):192–201.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Osborne RH, Batterham R, Livingston J. The evaluation of chronic disease self-management support across settings: the international experience of the health education impact questionnaire quality monitoring system. Nurs Clin N Am. 2011;46(3):255–70.CrossRef
21.
Epstein J, Osborne RH, Elsworth GR, Beaton DE, Guillemin F. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Health Education Impact Questionnaire: experimental study showed expert committee, not back-translation, added value. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(4):360–9.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Elsworth GR, Nolte S, Osborne RH. Factor structure and measurement invariance of the Health Education Impact Questionnaire: does the subjectivity of the response perspective threaten the contextual validity of inferences? SAGE Open Med. 2015;3:2050312115585041.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Hirani SP, Rixon L, Beynon M, et al. Quantifying beliefs regarding telehealth: development of the Whole Systems Demonstrator Service User Technology Acceptability Questionnaire. J Telemed Telecare. 2017;23(4):460–9.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Osborne RH, Batterham RW, Elsworth GR, Hawkins M, Buchbinder R. The grounded psychometric development and initial validation of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). BMC Public Health. 2013;13:658.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Maindal HT, Kayser L, Norgaard O, Bo A, Elsworth GR, Osborne RH. Cultural adaptation and validation of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ): robust nine-dimension Danish language confirmatory factor model. Springerplus. 2016;5(1):1232.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 14. College Station: StataCorp LP; 2015.
27.
Smithson J. Using and analysing focus groups: limitations and possibilities. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2000;3(2):103–19.CrossRef
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Krol M, de Voer G, Osowski U. Patient adherence to subcutaneous IFN beta-1a injections using the RebiSmart(®) injection device: a retrospective real-world study among Dutch and German patients with multiple sclerosis. Patient Preference Adherence. 2017;11:1189–96.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Willis H, Webster J, Larkin AM, Parkes L. An observational, retrospective, UK and Ireland audit of patient adherence to subcutaneous interferon beta-1a injections using the RebiSmart(®) injection device. Patient Preference Adherence. 2014;8:843–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Devonshire VA, Feinstein A, Moriarty P. Adherence to interferon β-1a therapy using an electronic self-injector in multiple sclerosis: a multicentre, single-arm, observational, phase IV study. BMC Res Notes. 2016;9:148.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. The triple aim: care, health, and cost. Health Aff (Project Hope). 2008;27(3):759–69.CrossRef
36.
Hibbard JH, Cunningham PJ. How engaged are consumers in their health and health care, and why does it matter? Res Brief. 2008;8:1–9.
37.
Fair BS. Contrasts in patients’ and providers’ explanations of rheumatoid arthritis. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2003;35(4):339–44.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The Parker Model: Applying a Qualitative Three-Step Approach to Optimally Utilize Input from Stakeholders When Introducing New Device Technologies in the Management of Chronic Rheumatic Diseases
Authors
Tanja S. Jørgensen
Marie Skougaard
Peter C. Taylor
Hans C. Asmussen
Anne Lee
Louise Klokker
Louise Svejstrup
Irina Mountian
Henrik Gudbergsen
Lars Erik Kristensen
Publication date
01-10-2018
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Issue 5/2018
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Electronic ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0306-8

Other articles of this Issue 5/2018

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 5/2018 Go to the issue

Commentary

Key Issues and Potential Solutions for Understanding Healthcare Preference Heterogeneity Free from Patient-Level Scale Confounds

Original Research Article

Patient Perspective on Acute Intermittent Porphyria with Frequent Attacks: A Disease with Intermittent and Chronic Manifestations

Commentary

Symposium Title: Preference Evidence for Regulatory Decisions

Systematic Review

Accounting for Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare-Related Discrete Choice Experiments when Comparing Stated Preferences: A Systematic Review

Original Research Article

Patient-Reported Symptoms Over 48 Weeks Among Participants in Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Non-inferiority Trials of Adults with HIV on Co-formulated Bictegravir, Emtricitabine, and Tenofovir Alafenamide versus Co-formulated Abacavir, Dolutegravir, and Lamivudine

Original Research Article

Adaptation, Acceptance and Adaptive Preferences in Health and Capability Well-Being Measurement Amongst Those Approaching End of Life
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

Read more

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits