Feasibility and Acceptability of Using an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measure via a Patient Portal in HIV care
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<h3>Context:</h3> Adherence to antiretrovirals (ART) is essential for people with HIV (PWH), but many face barriers. The I-Score is a new electronic patient-reported outcome measure (ePROM) of ART adherence barriers to be used in HIV care. <h3>Objective:</h3> To assess the feasibility and acceptability of administering the I-Score on a patient portal. <h3>Study Design Analysis:</h3> 6-month one-arm implementation pilot study. <h3>Setting:</h3> A large hospital-based clinic in Montreal, Canada. <h3>Population:</h3> PWH on ART, speaking French or English, owning a smartphone, willing to use the patient portal, reporting adherence issues. <h3>Intervention/Instrument:</h3> Patients visited their HIV physician at Time 1 (T1), 3 months (T2), and 6 months (T3). Before visits, they completed the I-Score. After visits, they completed a survey on sociodemographic characteristics (T1), and feasibility and acceptability of the I-Score. <h3>Outcome Measures:</h3> Feasibility was assessed with consent and retention rates; frequency of technological problems; and the 4-item Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM). Acceptability was evaluated with the adapted 6-item Acceptability E-scale for web-based PROMs (AES); and the 4-item Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM). We provide descriptive statistics. <h3>Results:</h3> Out of 34 PWH with identified adherence issues, 32/34 (94%) consented. Average age was 48 years (standard deviation (SD)=15), 12/32 (38%) were women, 19/32 (59%), migrants, and 10/32 (31%) lived below the poverty line. Overall, 26/32 (81%) completed the study, for a total of 78 visits; 4 were lost-to-follow-up and 2 withdrew due to difficulties with technology. During T1, T2, and T3, there were 12/26 (46%), 17/26 (65%), and 16/26 (62%) participants, respectively, reporting no technological problem. Problems met included needing to: remind patients to complete the I-Score before medical visit (15 visits); re-initialize passwords (8); resolve connectivity issues (2); and re-install the patient portal (2). Physicians could not access I-Score results at 4 visits; 10 visits were postponed due to difficulties. Average scores on FIM increased from 17/20 (T1;SD=5), to 18/20 (T2;2), to 19/20 (T3;2). Average AES increased from 24/30 (SD=5), to 26/30 (3), to 27/30 (3). Average AIM scores passed from 16/20 (5), to 18/20 (2), to 17/20 (3). <h3>Conclusions:</h3> The feasibility and acceptability of using a patient portal to administer the I-Score ePROM was high for vulnerable PWH, but use was challenged by patient literacy and technology.
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.
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 | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 découle