Search

Introduction: Co-creation is becoming increasingly popular to develop interventions that can achieve results beyond scientific findings. Workshops are one of the main ways to collect data and generate ideas in co-creation, which traditionally have been conducted at a fixed, physical location. However, organising face-to-face workshops is considered challenging, due to the transportation time, low flexibility and high costs. This study aims to investigate the online format of co-creation workshops and to discuss methodological considerations. Methods: Co-creation workshops were organised with 78 medical students, general practitioner (GP) trainees and specialist trainees from five Belgian universities. The study included four different cohorts, namely first-year bachelors (n = 12), first-year masters (n = 13), first-year GP trainees (n = 14) and first-year specialist trainees (n = 39). Three consequential online workshops were organised for each cohort, resulting in 12 workshops in total. The collected data included qualitative data (video-and audio recordings, notes from interdisciplinary team discussions, Miro boards) and quantitative data (registrations and actual attendance rates). All workshops were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed using NVivo. Results: The participants reported increased flexibility and reduced costs as main benefits of the online format. In addition, the online platforms Miro and Microsoft Teams were considered dynamic and inspiring, facilitating high levels of engagement and interactivity. However, the online format also showed some challenges, such as the need for a digitally educated population and a stable internet connection. Conclusion: This study has shown that online workshops, also in the highly interactive method of co-creation, provide a viable alternative to collect data and generate ideas. This is particularly the case, when the target population is geographically dispersed, has a high workload and is digitally educated. Online workshops, however, also face limitations and challenges that need to be considered when choosing this format. First, we would like to thank the other WeMeds consortium members, who were not involved as co-authors but who contributed significantly to the overall project, namely Prof. Dr. Dirk Devroey, Prof. Dr. Peter Pype, Prof. Dr. Roy Remmen, Prof. Dr. Wim Pinxten and Dr. Sofie vandenbroeck. In addition, we would like to express our gratitude to the students that contributed to the organisation and qualitative analyses of the workshops: Annabel Bijnens, Sofie Boghe, Sofie Van den Acker and Charlotte Vanneck. Third, we would like to thank Elke Smeers, who provided support with the logistical organisation of the online workshops. The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is part of the WeMeds study, which received internal funds from KU Leuven (Category 3) under C3/20/040.

After a cardiac event, secondary prevention is recommended to foster recovery and reduce the risk of recurrent events. European guidelines and EAPC position statements on prevention of cardiovascular diseases recommend a holistic approach that actively engages patients by using shared decision making (SDM). It has been demonstrated that telerehabilitation can be a feasible and effective add-on or alternative compared to conventional in-hospital secondary prevention. However, till date, there is no eHealth solution that offers a holistic approach for secondary prevention that includes SDM. In this paper, we present the CoroPrevention-SDM approach, a technology-supported shared decision making approach for a comprehensive secondary prevention program for cardiac patients. The CoroPrevention Tool Suite consists of three applications that support patients and caregivers in following this approach: 1) a caregiver dashboard that includes decision support systems and supports SDM, 2) a patient mobile application that supports patients in making behaviour changes in their daily life, and 3) an extended ePRO application that collects patient reported outcomes and patient preferences. In a formative usability study, we assessed patients’ and caregivers’ opinion about our approach. The study indicated that both are willing to use our proposed approach to collaboratively set behavioural goals during SDM encounters. publishedVersion

Background While questionnaires for assessing digital literacy exist, there is still a need for an easy-to-use and implementable questionnaire for assessing digital readiness in a broader sense. Additionally, learnability should be assessed to identify those patients who need additional training to use digital tools in a health care setting. Objective The aim of the development of the Digital Health Readiness Questionnaire (DHRQ) was to create a short, usable, and freely accessible questionnaire that was designed from a clinical practice perspective. Methods It was a prospective single-center survey study conducted in Jessa Hospital Hasselt in Belgium. The questionnaire was developed with a panel of field experts with questions in following 5 categories: digital usage, digital skills, digital literacy, digital health literacy, and digital learnability. All participants who were visiting the cardiology department as patients between February 1, 2022, and June 1, 2022, were eligible for participation. Cronbach α and confirmatory factor analysis were performed. Results A total number of 315 participants were included in this survey study, of which 118 (37.5%) were female. The mean age of the participants was 62.6 (SD 15.1) years. Cronbach α analysis yielded a score of >.7 in all domains of the DHRQ, which indicates acceptable internal consistency. The fit indices of the confirmatory factor analysis showed a reasonably good fit: standardized root-mean-square residual=0.065, root-mean-square error of approximation=0.098 (95% CI 0.09-0.106), Tucker-Lewis fit index=0.895, and comparative fit index=0.912. Conclusions The DHRQ was developed as an easy-to-use, short questionnaire to assess the digital readiness of patients in a routine clinical setting. Initial validation demonstrates good internal consistency, and future research will be needed to externally validate the questionnaire. The DHRQ has the potential to be implemented as a useful tool to gain insight into the patients who are treated in a care pathway, tailor digital care pathways to different patient populations, and offer those with low digital readiness but high learnability appropriate education programs in order to let them take part in the digital pathways.

Aims Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is indicated in patients with cardiovascular disease but participation rates remain low. Telerehabilitation (TR) is often proposed as a solution. While many trials have investigated TR, few have studied participation rates in conventional CR non-participants. The aim of this study was to identify the percentage of patients that would be willing to participate in a TR programme to identify the main perceived barriers and facilitators for participating in TR. Methods and results Two groups of patients were recruited: CR non-participants and CR participants. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Thirty non-participants and 30 participants were interviewed. Of CR non-participants, 33% would participate in TR and 10% would participate in a blended CR programme (combination of centre-based CR and TR). Of CR participants, 60% would participate in TR and 70% would be interested in a blended CR programme. Of those that would participate in TR, 44% would prefer centre-based CR, 33% would prefer a blended CR programme, and 11% would prefer a full TR programme. In both groups, the main facilitating aspect about TR was not needing transport and the main barrier was digital literacy. Conclusion For CR non-participants, TR will only partly solve the problem of low participation rates and blended programmes might not offer a solution. Cardiac rehabilitation participants are more prepared to participate in TR and blended CR. Digital literacy was in both groups mentioned as an important barrier, emphasizing the challenges for healthcare and local governments to keep educating all types of patients in digital literacy.