Facilitators and barriers to adhere to monitoring disease activity with ePROs: a focus group study in patients with inflammatory arthritis

Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Bart F Seppen1,2,3, Jimmy Wiegel2,3, Michael T Nurmohamed3,1,4,5, Wouter H Bos3, Marieke M. ter Wee2,6
1Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2Amsterdam Public Health, Methodology, Societal Participation in Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3Amsterdam Rheumatology and immunology Center | Reade, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
4Department of Rheumatology and Immunology, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
5Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunity, Inflammatory Diseases, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
6Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Tóm tắt

AbstractTelemonitoring disease activity with electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) may reduce the workload of rheumatic care by decreasing outpatient clinic visits. However, low adherence to reporting ePROs is frequently observed. Our objective was to identify facilitators and barriers to weekly monitoring of disease activity with ePROs. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who recently participated in one of the two telemonitoring studies with ePROs completed in a smartphone app, were invited to participate in focus group discussions (FGD). Thematic analysis was used to identify themes that play a role in the decision to continue or stop reporting weekly ePROs. A total of 22 patients participated in three FGDs. Five themes were identified that were of importance to adhere to telemonitoring: (1) questionnaire frequency, (2) discussing results of completed ePROs, (3) physical consultations, (4) patient insight into disease activity and (5) user experience of the app. All themes contained both barrier and facilitator elements. The results suggest that to improve adherence to telemonitoring of disease activity with ePROs, the perceived benefits of completing ePROs should be maximized. This can be done by providing patients the ability to skip (unneeded) physical consultations in case of low disease activity, and training clinicians to always discuss the completed ePROs. In addition, it is essential to reduce the effort to report ePROs, by tailoring the frequency of ePROs based on the patients’ disease activity or preference, aiming for optimal app functionality as well as by sending notifications when new ePROs are available.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Smolen JS, Breedveld FC, Burmester GR, Bykerk V, Dougados M, Emery P, Kvien TK, Navarro-Compan MV, Oliver S, Schoels M et al (2016) Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: 2014 update of the recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis 75(1):3–15. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-207524

Smolen JS, Landewe RBM, Bijlsma JWJ, Burmester GR, Dougados M, Kerschbaumer A, McInnes IB, Sepriano A, van Vollenhoven RF, de Wit M et al (2020) EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update. Ann Rheum Dis 79(6):685–699. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216655

Aletaha D (2015) New insights into the measurement of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol 27(3):268–272. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOR.0000000000000167

Aletaha D, Smolen JS (2006) The definition and measurement of disease modification in inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 32(1):9–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rdc.2005.09.005

Hendrikx J, de Jonge MJ, Fransen J, Kievit W, van Riel PL (2016) Systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for assessing disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis. RMD Open 2(2):e000202. https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2015-000202

Pincus T, Yazici Y, Bergman MJ (2009) RAPID3, an index to assess and monitor patients with rheumatoid arthritis, without formal joint counts: similar results to DAS28 and CDAI in clinical trials and clinical care. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 35(4):773–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rdc.2009.10.008

Wiegel J, Seppen B, Ter Wee MM, Nurmohamed MT, Boers M, Bos WH (2022) The RAPID3 questionnaire as a screening tool to reduce the number of outpatient clinic visits: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Rheumatol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-022-06162-7

Seppen BF, Wiegel J, L’Ami MJ, Duarte Dos Santos Rico S, Catarinella FS, Turkstra F, Boers M, Bos WH (2020) Feasibility of self-monitoring rheumatoid arthritis with a smartphone app: results of two mixed-methods pilot studies. JMIR Form Res 4(9):e20165. https://doi.org/10.2196/20165

White KM, Ivan A, Williams R, Galloway JB, Norton S, Matcham F (2021) Remote measurement in rheumatoid arthritis: qualitative analysis of patient perspectives. JMIR Form Res 5(3):e22473. https://doi.org/10.2196/22473

Renskers L, Rongen-van Dartel SA, Huis AM, van Riel PL (2020) Patients’ experiences regarding self-monitoring of the disease course: an observational pilot study in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases at a rheumatology outpatient clinic in The Netherlands. BMJ Open 10(8):e033321. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033321

Najm A, Lempp H, Gossec L, Berenbaum F, Nikiphorou E (2020) Needs, Experiences, and views of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases on self-management mobile health apps: mixed methods study. JMIR mHealth uHealth 8(4):e14351. https://doi.org/10.2196/14351

Grainger R, Townsley HR, Ferguson CA, Riley FE, Langlotz T, Taylor WJ (2020) Patient and clinician views on an app for rheumatoid arthritis disease monitoring: function, implementation and implications. Int J Rheum Dis 23(6):813–827. https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-185X.13850

Eysenbach G (2005) The law of attrition. J Med Internet Res 7(1):e11. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7.1.e11

Colls J, Lee YC, Xu C, Corrigan C, Lu F, Marquez-Grap G, Murray M, Suh DH, Solomon DH (2021) Patient adherence with a smartphone app for patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 60(1):108–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keaa202

Kempin R, Richter JG, Schlegel A, Baraliakos X, Tsiami S, Buehring B, Kiefer D, Braun J, Kiltz U (2022) Monitoring of disease activity with a smartphone app in routine clinical care in patients with axial spondyloarthritis. J Rheumatol 49(8):878–884. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.211116

Seppen B, Wiegel J, Ter Wee M, Schaardenburg D, Roorda L, Nurmohamed M, Boers M, Bos W (2022) Smartphone-assisted patient-initiated care versus usual care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and low disease activity: a randomized controlled trial. Arthrit Rheumatol. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.42292

Wiegel J, Seppen B, Nurmohamed MT, Bos WH, Ter Wee MM (2022) Who stop telemonitoring and who adhere? A prospective cohort study in patients with inflammatory arthritis. BMC Rheumatol 6:1–9

Krueger RA, Casey MA (2000) Focus group: a practical guide for applied research, 3rd edn. Sage, New York

Rabiee F (2004) Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proc Nutr Soc 63(4):655–660. https://doi.org/10.1079/pns2004399

Marshall MN (1996) Sampling for qualitative research. Fam Pract 13(6):522–525. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/13.6.522

Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J (2007) Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 19(6):349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042

Primdahl J, Jensen DV, Meincke RH, Jensen KV, Ziegler C, Nielsen SW, Dalsgaard L, Kildemand M, Hetland ML, Esbensen BA (2020) Patients’ views on routine collection of patient-reported outcomes in rheumatology outpatient care: a multicenter focus group study. Arthrit Care Res 72(9):1331–1338. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.24019

Woodyatt CR, Finneran CA, Stephenson R (2016) In-person versus online focus group discussions: a comparative analysis of data quality. Qual Health Res 26(6):741–749. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316631510

Halliday M, Mill D, Johnson J, Lee K (2021) Let’s talk virtual! Online focus group facilitation for the modern researcher. Res Soc Admin Pharm (RSAP) 17(12):2145–2150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2021.02.003

Kite J, Phongsavan P (2017) Insights for conducting real-time focus groups online using a web conferencing service. F1000 Res 6:122. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10427.1

Wirtz AL, Cooney EE, Chaudhry A, Reisner SL (2019) Computer-mediated communication to facilitate synchronous online focus group discussions: feasibility study for qualitative HIV research among transgender women across the United States. J Med Internet Res 21(3):e12569. https://doi.org/10.2196/12569

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Thông tin tác giả