A Patient-Oriented Implementation Strategy for a Perioperative mHealth Intervention: Feasibility Cohort Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Day surgery is being increasingly implemented across Europe, driven in part by capacity problems. Patients recovering at home could benefit from tools tailored to their new care setting to effectively manage their convalescence. The mHealth application ikHerstel is one such tool, but although it administers its functions in the home, its implementation hinges on health care professionals within the hospital. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a feasibility study of an additional patient-oriented implementation strategy for ikHerstel. This strategy aimed to empower patients to access and use ikHerstel independently, in contrast to implementation as usual, which hinges on the health care professional acting as gatekeeper. Our research question was "How well are patients able to use ikHerstel independently of their health care professional?" METHODS: We investigated the implementation strategy in terms of its recruitment, reach, dose delivered, dose received, and fidelity. Patients with a recent or prospective elective surgery were recruited using a wide array of materials to simulate patient-oriented dissemination of ikHerstel. Data were collected through web-based surveys. Descriptive analysis and open coding were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Recruitment yielded 213 registrations, with 55 patients ultimately included in the study. The sample was characterized by patients undergoing abdominal surgery, with high literacy and above average digital health literacy, and included an overrepresentation of women (48/55, 87%). The implementation strategy had a reach of 81% (63/78), with 87% (55/67) of patients creating a recovery plan. Patients were satisfied with their independent use of ikHerstel, rating it an average 7.0 (SD 1.9) of 10, and 54% (29/54) of patients explicitly reported no difficulties in using it. A major concern of the implementation strategy was conflicts in recommendations between ikHerstel and the health care professionals, as well as the resulting feelings of insecurity experienced by patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this small feasibility study, most patients were satisfied with the patient-oriented implementation strategy. However, the lack of involvement of health care professionals due to the strategy contributed to patient concerns regarding conflicting recommendations between ikHerstel and health care professionals.
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) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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) | 0,002 | 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 ».