Search

Use of digital patient-reported outcomes is being introduced in care of chronic conditions, including Inflammatory Bowel Disease. The aim is to supplement face-to-face follow-up sessions through symptom screening, and to inform follow-up through questions about mental health and quality of life. However, little is known about who is using this as intended. This study aimed to map differences between users and non-users among people with IBD and explore the mechanisms behind. We administered a questionnaire including the Readiness and Enablement Index for Health Technology (ReadHy) and the Service User Technology Acceptability Questionnaire (SUTAQ) to all people with IBD registered at Silkeborg Regional Hospital. Comparison between users and non-users and cluster analysis was conducted. Effect size (Cohen's d) was used to estimate magnitude of difference between groups. The user and non-user groups differed most strongly by level of emotional distress (d = 0.45). Cluster analysis of the ReadHy scales showed profiles have different sets of difficulties and reservations towards digital solutions. These difficulties correlated moderately with SUTAQ dissatisfaction and low acceptability. The dimensions of ReadHy may help to better understand particular needs of people with IBD when accessing digital PROs, which may lead to higher acceptability and improved quality of care.

BACKGROUND: Avoidable appointments and increasing incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) call for alternative ways of organizing outpatient visits. In controlled studies, telemedicine including patient reported outcome (PRO) has shown to improve outcomes in IBD and reduce health care utilization. However, we lack studies of telemedicine implemented in everyday practice. We therefore described use of a PRO-based telemedicine follow-up (AmbuIBD) in a real-life setting and investigated the effect on outpatient visits and hospital admissions.METHODS: We conducted a cohort study including patients with IBD in an outpatient clinic at a Danish regional hospital August 2018. Data included extracts from the Patient Administration System and the AmbuFlex system between 2017 and August 2018, plus questionnaire data from clinicians. Descriptive statistics were used to describe use of AmbuIBD and differences between before and after results were tested with Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.RESULTS: Of 848 patients in outpatient care, 77% were included in AmbuIBD. Most patients were set to answer a PRO questionnaire once a year (n = 407, 62%), and 66% of 1913 answered questionnaires were handled with no further contact. AmbuIBD was well accepted by clinicians. Outpatient visits the year after AmbuIBD compared to the year before were reduced with 14% (p ≤ .001). The largest reduction was for patients with mild or no disease activity (45%, p ≤ .001). No difference was found for hospital admissions.CONCLUSIONS: AmbuIBD is feasible and well accepted when implemented in an outpatient clinic. More than half of patients are only followed by questionnaire, and we found a reduction in outpatient visits.

BACKGROUND: Use of digital health services, such as digital patient-reported outcomes, depends on many different human factors as well as digital design solutions. One factor is clinicians' attitude towards the system, their reasoning behind the using system and their perceptions of patients' ability to engage with digital health systems. This study aimed to explore hospital clinicians' attitudes towards digital patient-reported outcomes used in the routine care and treatment of inflammatory bowel disease, and to explore the potential role of clinicians' attitudes in influencing patients' use of digital patient-reported outcomes.RESULTS: Twelve clinicians using digital patient-reported outcome assessments in the care of inflammatory bowel disease were interviewed about their experiences of, and perspectives on, using this service. Most participants supported the use of digital patient-reported outcome assessments in the care of most patients. Participants reported that most patients found the digital solution easy to use. They perceived digital patient-reported outcomes to have three main purposes: prioritising resources; improving patients' quality of life; and improving quality of care. The patient-clinician relationship was of great importance to participants. Participants varied in their intention to use digital PRO, as some viewed the system as a positive but optional add-on for patients, whilst others intended to use the system with all eligible patients.CONCLUSION: Clinicians' general support of using digital patient-reported outcomes might facilitate their use among patients with inflammatory bowel disease. The participants saw benefits in doing so for patients, clinicians and the wider health service. Clinicians' attitudes towards the use of digital PRO in the care of their patients may influence patients' uptake of health service.