Search

BackgroundThe adoption rate of digital health in the health care sector is low in many countries. A facilitating factor for successful implementation and adoption of digital health is acceptance by current and future health care professionals. ObjectiveThis study was conducted to identify factors associated with willingness to use digital health tools in patient care among health care professionals and students. MethodsThis was a quantitative cross-sectional survey study conducted among health care professionals and students at a university hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A nonprobability convenience sampling procedure was used to recruit participants. Data were collected using a self-completed e-questionnaire that was distributed by email. Chi-square tests, t tests, and logistic regression were used to analyze the data. ResultsWe found that 181 out of 218 health care professionals (83.0%; 75.6% [59/78] physicians; 87.1% [122/140] nurses) and 115 out of 154 students (74.7%; 80.0% [76/95] medical students and 66.1% [39/59] nursing students) were willing to use digital tools in patient care. Willingness to use digital tools was significantly associated with attitude (Adjusted Odds Ratios [AOR] 1.96; 95% CI 1.14-3.36) and self-efficacy (AOR 1.64; 95% CI 1.17-2.30) among health care professionals, and with current year of study (AOR 2.08; 95% CI 1.18-3.68) and self-efficacy (AOR 1.77; 95% CI 1.17-2.69) among students. No significant difference in willingness to use digital tools was found between physicians and nurses (P=.113), and between medical and nursing students (P=.079). ConclusionsThe findings of this study should encourage policy makers and hospital managers to implement relevant eHealth interventions within routine health care systems in Saudi Arabia. For successful implementation, digital health education programs should be implemented simultaneously, so that current and future health care professionals are able to develop required positive attitudes as well as practical skills and competencies.

BackgroundObesity is linked to a number of chronic health conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and cancer, and weight loss interventions are often expensive. Recent systematic reviews concluded that app and web-based interventions can improve lifestyle behaviors and weight loss at a reasonable cost, but long-term sustainability needs to be demonstrated. ObjectiveThis study protocol is for a 2-year randomized controlled trial that aims to evaluate the clinical and economic effects of a primary care, anchored, collaborative, electronic health (eHealth) lifestyle coaching program (long-term Lifestyle change InterVention and eHealth Application [LIVA] 2.0) in obese participants with and without type 2 diabetes. The program’s primary outcome is weight loss. Its secondary outcome is the hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level, and its tertiary outcomes are retention rate, quality of life (QOL), and cost effectiveness. Analytically, the focus is on associations of participant characteristics with outcomes and sustainability. MethodsWe conduct a multicenter trial with a 1-year intervention and 1-year retention. LIVA 2.0 is implemented in municipalities within administrative regions in Denmark, specifically eight municipalities located within the Region of Southern Denmark and two municipalities located within the Capital Region of Denmark. The participants are assessed at baseline and at 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-ups. Individual data from the LIVA 2.0 platform are combined with clinical measurements, questionnaires, and participants’ usage of municipality and health care services. The participants have a BMI ≥30 but ≤45 kg/m2, and 50% of the participants have type 2 diabetes. The participants are randomized in an approximately 60:40 manner, and based on sample size calculations on weight loss and intention-to-treat statistics, 200 participants are randomized to an intervention group and 140 are randomized to a control group. The control group is offered the conventional preventive program of the municipality, and it is compared to the intervention group, which follows the LIVA 2.0 in addition to the conventional preventive program. ResultsThe first baseline assessments have been carried out in March 2018, and the 2-year follow-up will be carried out between March 2020 and April 2021. The hypothesis is that the trial results will demonstrate decreased body weight and that the number of patients who show normalization of their HbA1c levels in the intervention group will be much higher than that in the control group. The participants in the intervention group are also expected to show a greater decrease in their use of glucose-lowering medication and a greater improvement in their QOL when compared with the control group. Operational costs are expected to be lower than standard care, and the intervention is expected to be cost-effective. ConclusionsThis is the first time that an app and web-based eHealth lifestyle coaching program implemented in Danish municipalities will be clinically and economically evaluated. If the LIVA 2.0 eHealth lifestyle coaching program is proven to be effective, there is great potential for decreasing the rates of obesity, diabetes, and related chronic diseases. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03788915; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03788915 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/19172

BackgroundWearables, fitness apps, and patient home monitoring devices are used increasingly by patients and other individuals with lifestyle challenges. All Danish general practitioners (GPs) use digital health records and electronic health (eHealth) consultations on a daily basis, but how they perceive the increasing demand for lifestyle advice and whether they see eHealth as part of their lifestyle support should be explored further. ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore GPs’ perspectives on eHealth devices and apps and the use of eHealth in supporting healthy lifestyle behavior for their patients and themselves. MethodsA total of 10 (5 female and 5 male) GPs were recruited by purposive sampling, aged 38 to 69 years (mean 51 years), of which 4 had an urban uptake of patients and 6 a rural uptake. All of them worked in the region of Southern Denmark where GPs typically work alone or in partnership with 1 to 4 colleagues and all use electronic patient health records for prescription, referral, and asynchronous electronic consultations. We performed qualitative, semistructured, individual in-depth interviews with the GPs in their own office about how they used eHealth and mHealth devices to help patients challenged with lifestyle issues and themselves. We also interviewed how they treated lifestyle-challenged patients in general and how they imagined eHealth could be used in the future. ResultsAll GPs had smartphones or tablets, and everyone communicated on a daily basis with patients about disease and medicine via their electronic health record and the internet. We identified 3 themes concerning the use of eHealth: (1) how eHealth is used for patients; (2) general practitioners’ own experience with improving lifestyle and eHealth support; and (3) relevant coaching techniques for transformation into eHealth. ConclusionsGPs used eHealth frequently for themselves but only infrequently for their patients. GPs are familiar with behavioral change techniques and are ready to use them in eHealth if they are used to optimize processes and not hinder other treatments. Looking ahead, education of GPs and recognizing patients’ ability and preference to use eHealth with regard to a healthy living are needed.

BackgroundUser involvement is appearing increasingly on policy agendas in many countries, with a variety of proposals for facilitating it. The belief is that it will produce better health for individuals and community, as well as demonstrate greater respect for the basic principles of autonomy and democracy. ObjectiveOur Web-based project aims to increase involvement in health care and health research and is presented in the form of an umbrella protocol for a set of project-specific protocols. We conceptualize the person as a researcher engaged in a continual, living, informal “n-of-1”-type study of the effects of different actions and interventions on their health, including those implying contact with health care services. We see their research as primarily carried out in order to make better decisions for themselves, but they can offer to contribute the results to the wider population. We see the efforts of the "person-as-researcher" as contributing to the total amount of research undertaken in the community, with research not being confined to that undertaken by professional researchers and institutions. This view is fundamentally compatible with both the emancipatory and conventional approaches to increased user involvement, though somewhat more aligned with the former. MethodsOur online decision support tools, delivered directly to the person in the community and openly accessible, are to be seen as research resources. They will take the form of interactive decision aids for a variety of specific health conditions, as well as a generic one that supports all health and health care decisions through its focus on key aspects of decision quality. We present a high-level protocol for the condition-specific studies that will implement our approach, organized within the Populations, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes, Timings, and Settings (PICOTS) framework. ResultsOur underlying hypothesis concerns the person-as-researcher who is equipped with a prescriptive, transparent, expected value-based opinion—an opinion that combines their criterion importance weights with the Best Estimates Available Now for how well each of the available options performs on each of those outcomes. The hypothesis is that this person-as-researcher is more likely to be able to position themselves as an active participant in a clinical encounter, if they wish, than someone who has engaged with a descriptive decision aid that attempts to work with their existing cognitive processes and stresses the importance of information. The precise way this hypothesis is tested will be setting-specific and condition-specific and will be spelled out in the individual project protocols. ConclusionsDecision resources that provide fast access to the results of slower thinking can provide the stimulus that many individuals need to take a more involved role in their own health. Our project, advanced simply as one approach to increased user involvement, is designed to make progress in the short term with minimal resources and to do so at the point of decision need, when motivation is highest. Some basic distinctions, such as those between science and non-science, research and practice, community and individual, and lay and professional become somewhat blurred and may need to be rethought in light of this approach.

Background: Deprescribing (planned, supervised discontinuation) of statins may be considered in some older persons. This should be carefully discussed between patients and GPs.Methods: We examined GPs' preferences for discussing statin deprescribing by conducting a discrete choice experiment (DCE) sent to a stratified random sample of 500 Danish GPs. Attributes were discussion topics (goals of therapy, evidence on statin use in older persons, adverse effects, uncertainty), and levels were the depth of the discussion topics (none, brief, detailed). We used mixed logistic regression for analysis.Results: A total of 90 GPs (mean age 48, 54% female, mean 11 years in practice) completed the DCE. There was substantial variability in which topics GPs felt were most important to discuss; however, GPs generally preferred a brief discussion of topics to detailed ones. The most important discussion topic appeared to be goals of therapy. GPs felt a brief discussion of evidence was important but not a detailed one, while adverse effects and uncertainty were felt to be less important to discuss.Conclusion: GPs prefer brief discussions on a range of topics when discussing statin deprescribing but have differing views on which topics are most important. For deprescribing communication tools to be useful to GPs in clinical practice, they may need to focus on brief coverage of the range of relevant topics. Future work should evaluate patient preferences, and opportunities for education and training for GPs on deprescribing communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]