Predictors for response to electronic patient-reported outcomes in routine care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective cohort study

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 43 - Trang 651-657 - 2023
Jimmy Wiegel1,2,3, Bart F. Seppen1,2,3, Michael T. Nurmohamed1,2,4,5, Marieke M. ter Wee6,3, Wouter H. Bos1
1Amsterdam Rheumatology & Immunology Center, Reade, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2Amsterdam Rheumatology & Immunology Center, Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3Amsterdam Public Health, Methodology, Societal Participation in Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
4Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit, Department of Rheumatology and Immunology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
5Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunity, Inflammatory Diseases, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
6Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit, Department of Epidemiology & Data Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Tóm tắt

Routine collection of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) can improve clinical care. However, a low response rate may counteract the benefits. To optimize adoption, the aim of this study was to investigate which patient factors and/or timing of the invitation predicted response to ePROs sent prior to consultations in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. We performed a retrospective database study with clinical data collected as part of usual care from the electronic medical records at Reade Amsterdam. The dataset comprised the email invitations to complete the ePRO sent prior to consultation. Multiple patient factors and factors defining the timing of the invitation were investigated if they predicted response to the ePRO through a multivariable logistic generalized estimating equation analysis. In total, 17.070 ePRO invitations were sent to 3194 patients (mean age 60 (SD 14), 74% female), of which 40% was completed. Patients between 55 and 73 years (OR 1.39, 95%CI 1.09–1.77) and with higher social economic status (SES) (OR 1.51, 95%CI 1.22–1.88) had significantly higher odds for completing the ePRO, while patients living in an urban area had lower odds (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62–0.76). In year 4 after implementation, the OR was increased to 3.69 (95% CI 2.91–4.90). The implementation of ePROs in daily clinical practice needs improvement since 40% of the ePROs sent prior to consultations were completed. Patients that had higher odds to report the next ePRO were between the age of 55–73, had a higher socio-economic status, and were residents in a rural area. The adoption of reporting the PRO increased over time, but the timing of the prompt did not predict response. Additional research is needed to understand ePRO completion, especially for patients with lower socio-economic status.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Chen J, Ou L, Hollis SJ (2013) A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting. BMC Health Serv Res 13:211. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-211 Seppen BF, Wiegel J, L’Ami MJ, Dos DuarteSantosRico 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 Seppen B, Wiegel J, Ter Wee MM, van Schaardenburg D, Roorda LD, Nurmohamed MT, Boers M, Bos WH (2022) Smartphone-assisted patient-initiated care versus usual care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and low disease activity: a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Rheumatol 74(11):1737–1745. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.42292 Schwartzberg L (2016) Electronic patient-reported outcomes: the time is ripe for integration into patient care and clinical research. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ 35:e89-96. https://doi.org/10.1200/edbk_158749 Solomon DH, Rudin RS (2020) Digital health technologies: opportunities and challenges in rheumatology. Nat Rev Rheumatol 16(9):525–535. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41584-020-0461-x Fautrel B, Alten R, Kirkham B, de la Torre I, Durand F, Barry J, Holzkaemper T, Fakhouri W, Taylor PC (2018) Call for action: how to improve use of patient-reported outcomes to guide clinical decision making in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Int 38(6):935–947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-018-4005-5 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 60(1):108–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keaa202 Wiegel J, Seppen BF, Nurmohamed MT, Bos WH, Ter Wee MM (2022) Who stop telemonitoring disease activity and who adhere: a prospective cohort study of patients with inflammatory arthritis. BMC Rheumatol 6(1):73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41927-022-00303-w Sun EY, Alvarez C, Callahan LF, Sheikh SZ (2022) The disparities in patient portal use among patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: retrospective cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res 24(8):e38802. https://doi.org/10.2196/38802 Müskens WD, van RongenDartel SAA, Vogel C, Huis A, Adang EMM, van Riel P (2021) Telemedicine in the management of rheumatoid arthritis: maintaining disease control with less health-care utilization. Rheumatol Adv Pract. 5(1):rkaa079. https://doi.org/10.1093/rap/rkaa079 Renskers L, van RongenDartel 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 Bidargaddi N, Almirall D, Murphy S, Nahum-Shani I, Kovalcik M, Pituch T, Maaieh H, Strecher V (2018) To prompt or not to prompt? A microrandomized trial of time-varying push notifications to increase proximal engagement with a mobile health app. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 6(11):e10123. https://doi.org/10.2196/10123 MacPherson MM, Merry KJ, Locke SR, Jung ME (2019) Effects of mobile health prompts on self-monitoring and exercise behaviors following a diabetes prevention program: secondary analysis from a randomized controlled trial. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 7(9):e12956. https://doi.org/10.2196/12956 Pincus T, Castrejon I, Riad M, Obreja E, Lewis C, Krogh NS (2020) Reliability, feasibility, and patient acceptance of an electronic version of a multidimensional health assessment questionnaire for routine rheumatology care: validation and patient preference study. JMIR Form Res. 4(5):e15815. https://doi.org/10.2196/15815 Steenland K, Henley J, Calle E, Thun M (2004) Individual- and area-level socioeconomic status variables as predictors of mortality in a cohort of 179,383 persons. Am J Epidemiol 159(11):1047–1056. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwh129 Ross EL, Jamison RN, Nicholls L, Perry BM, Nolen KD (2020) Clinical integration of a smartphone app for patients with chronic pain: retrospective analysis of predictors of benefits and patient engagement between clinic visits. J Med Internet Res 22(4):e16939. https://doi.org/10.2196/16939 Wiegel J, Seppen B, van der Leeden M, van der Esch M, de Vries R, Bos W (2021) Adherence to telemonitoring by electronic patient-reported outcome measures in patients with chronic diseases: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910161 Reiners F, Sturm J, Bouw LJW, Wouters EJM (2019) Sociodemographic factors influencing the use of eHealth in people with chronic diseases. Int J Environ Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16040645 Oinas-Kukkonen H, Harjumaa M (2009) Persuasive systems design: key issues, process model, and system features. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.0242 Han JH, Sunderland N, Kendall E, Gudes O, Henniker G (2010) Professional practice and innovation: chronic disease, geographic location and socioeconomic disadvantage as obstacles to equitable access to e-health. Health Inf Manag 39(2):30–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/183335831003900205 Neter E, Brainin E (2012) eHealth literacy: extending the digital divide to the realm of health information. J Med Internet Res 14(1):e19. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1619 Nagler RH, Ramanadhan S, Minsky S, Viswanath K (2013) Recruitment and retention for community-based ehealth interventions with populations of low socioeconomic position: strategies and challenges. J Commun 63(1):201–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12008 Bos WH, van Tubergen A, Vonkeman HE (2021) Telemedicine for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic; a positive experience in the Netherlands. Rheumatol Int 41(3):565–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-020-04771-6 Seppen BF, Wiegel J, Nurmohamed MT et al (2023) Facilitators and barriers to adhere to monitoring disease activity with ePROs: a focus group study in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Rheumatol Int. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-022-05263-5 Krusche M, Klemm P, Grahammer M, Mucke J, Vossen D, Kleyer A, Sewerin P, Knitza J (2020) Acceptance, usage, and barriers of electronic patient-reported outcomes among german rheumatologists: survey study. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 8(7):e18117. https://doi.org/10.2196/18117