Understanding Older Adults’ Experiences With a Digital Health Platform in General Practice: Qualitative Interview Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: In our aging population, primary care is under pressure to remain accessible to all. Effective use of digital health care could potentially lower general practitioners' (GPs) workload. Some general practices are already implementing a digital health platform as a primary method to contact their patients. However, it is unknown how older people experience this novel way to communicate with their GP. Objective: The aim of this study was to study the experiences of patients aged 65 years and older in general practices who use digital health as a primary communication tool. The secondary aims were to identify barriers and facilitators for the use of digital health care and whether a practice focus on digital health influences older patients' choice to enlist. Methods: We invited all patients aged 65 years and older at 2 general practices in Amsterdam that work with a novel digital health platform. We used purposive sampling to select a heterogeneous group of patients in terms of age, sex, level of education, digital literacy, and experiences with the digital app of their general practice. We conducted 18 semistructured interviews from May through July 2023. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed. Results: We generated three themes: (1) experiences of older people with digital health care in general practice, (2) impact of individual factors on digital health experiences, and (3) reasons for choosing a digitally oriented general practice. Participants reported both positive and negative experiences. The main perceived advantages of the digital health platform were increased accessibility, direct GP contact without an intermediary, and saving time through asynchronous communication. The disadvantages mentioned were log-in difficulties and problems with the automated explanatory questionnaire. Individual factors such as age, digital literacy, and expectations of general practice care seemed to impact people's experiences and could act as barriers or facilitators for using digital health. Reasons for older patients to enlist at a general practice were mainly practical. The digital orientation of the practice hardly played a role in this choice. Conclusions: Older patients in general practice see benefits to using a digital health platform that offers 2-way chat-based communication between the patient and GP. We found that individual factors such as skills, norms and values, attitudes toward digitalization, and expectations of general practice care impacted older patients' experiences with digital health care. For many older participants, the digital profile of the general practice did not play a role in their choice to enlist. Further improvement of digital health platforms will be necessary to ensure digital health for all in general practice.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».