Effectiveness of a Web-Based eHealth Portal for Delivery of Care to Home Dialysis Patients: A Single-Arm Pilot Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Improving a patient’s experience with their care through an online interface for communication (an eHealth patient portal) has been shown to be beneficial in some studies of chronic disease populations. However, little is known about the effectiveness of an eHealth portal for delivery of care to home dialysis patients. Objectives Primary: To determine whether an eHealth portal is effective at improving a patient’s experience with their home dialysis care. Secondary: (1) To determine whether an eHealth portal improves health-related quality of life for home dialysis patients, (2) to assess patient satisfaction with an eHealth portal and perceived impact on aspects of their home dialysis therapy and health, (3) to determine the acceptability of the eHealth portal software, and (4) to determine the change in telephone usage for communication after patient adoption of an eHealth portal. Design Single-arm pilot trial with recruitment over a 4-month period. Setting The multidisciplinary home dialysis clinic in Halifax Nova Scotia Canada. Patients Adults (>18 years) receiving either home hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. Measurements Consumer quality index (CQI), health-related quality of life using the EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D), acceptability of the eHealth portal software (using the Acceptability E-scale), and satisfaction/perceived impact (using a modified questionnaire). Methods A web-based application (McKesson, Canada, RelayHealth®) allowed patients and health care workers to communicate through a secure, password-protected online portal that permitted visualization of the messaging history by patient and provider. Patients and the home dialysis health care team had the ability to send messages related to patient care at any time including proposed changes to medication, instructions after a clinic visit, times of new appointments, upcoming investigations, or questions about care. Patient experience with home dialysis care using the CQI, health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D, acceptability of the eHealth portal software, and satisfaction/perceived impact were assessed at baseline, 6, and 12 months of follow-up (where applicable). Total minutes of telephone communication was assessed prior to and after adoption of the portal. Results Of the 41 patients who consented to join the portal, 27 (66%) created an online account. At baseline, patients had a positive experience for the care and communication provided by their nephrologist (CQI: 3.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.50-3.76) and this did not change significantly over the study period. Similar results were observed for the care provided by other nephrology health care team members. Health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D score was 0.80 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.71-0.83) at baseline and this also did not significantly change over the study period. Patients were satisfied with the eHealth portal (mean Likert scale score of 6.5 ± 0.6 in overall satisfaction, scale ranging from 1 completely dissatisfied to 10 completely satisfied), but only a minority (N = 12) completed a satisfaction questionnaire. Median monthly phone usage decreased from 12.5 to 10 minutes ( P = .02) after adoption of the portal. Limitations The study is limited by the small sample size, high rate of patient dropout, and limited response rate. Conclusions In this study of home dialysis patients, we identified that an eHealth communication did not lead to significant improvements in patient experience with home dialysis care. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02128347
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».