Search

BackgroundTechnological advances have radically changed the opportunities for individuals with chronic conditions to practice self-care and to coproduce health care and research. Digital technologies enable patients to perform tasks traditionally carried out by health care professionals in a more convenient way, at lower costs, and without compromising quality. Patients may also share real-world data with other stakeholders to promote individual and population health. However, there is a need for legal frameworks that enable patient privacy and control in such sharing of real-world data. We believe that this need could be met by the conceptualization of patient-controlled real-world data as knowledge commons, which is a resource shared by a group of people. ObjectiveThis study aimed to propose a conceptual model that describes how patient-controlled real-world data can be shared effectively in chronic care management, in a way that supports individual and population health, while respecting personal data privacy and control. MethodsAn action research approach was used to develop a solution to enable patients, in a self-determined way, to share patient-controlled data to other settings. We chose the context of cystic fibrosis (CF) care in Sweden, where coproduction between patients, their families, and health care professionals is critical in the introduction of new drugs. The first author, who is a lawyer and parent of children with CF, was a driver in the change process. All coauthors collaborated in the analysis. We collected primary and secondary data reflecting changes during the time period from 2012 to 2020, and performed a qualitative content analysis guided by the knowledge commons framework. ResultsThrough a series of changes, a national system for enabling patients to share patient-controlled real-world data to different stakeholders in CF care was implemented. The case analysis resulted in a conceptual model consisting of the following three knowledge commons arenas that contributed to patient-controlled real-world data collection, use, and sharing: (1) patient world arena involving the private sphere of patients and families; (2) clinical microsystem arena involving the professional sphere at frontline health care clinics; and (3) round table arena involving multiple stakeholders from different settings. Based on the specification of property rights, as presented in our model, the patient can keep control over personal health information and may grant use rights to other stakeholders. ConclusionsHealth information exchanges for sharing patient-controlled real-world data are pivotal to enable patients, health care professionals, health care funders, researchers, authorities, and the industry to coproduce high-quality care and to introduce and follow-up novel health technologies. Our model proposes how technical and legal structures that protect the integrity and self-determination of patients can be implemented, which may be applicable in other chronic care settings as well.

BackgroundWorldwide, the number of people with Parkinson’s disease (PD) is predicted to double between the years 2005 and 2030. Chronic care management requires active collaboration and knowledge exchange between patients and health care professionals (HCPs) for best possible health outcomes, which we describe as co-care. eHealth services have the potential to support the realization of co-care between people with PD (PwP) and HCPs. ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore how co-care could be operationalized in PD care, supported by eHealth. More specifically, this study explores PwP's and HCPs' expectations and desired eHealth functionalities to achieve co-care. MethodsPrinciples of participatory design were used to enable the identification of co-care needs and design ideas, in a series of 4 half-day co-design workshops. The sample included 7 (4 women) PwP and 9 (4 women) HCPs, including 4 neurologists, 3 nurses, and 2 physiotherapists. The co-design process resulted in a functional prototype that was evaluated by the co-design participants in the last workshop. Data were collected through note cards produced by the participants during the first 3 workshops and focus group discussions during the 3rd and 4th workshops. The data were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis. After the workshop series, the prototype was demonstrated at a Mini Fair for ongoing PD research and evaluated using a self-developed questionnaire with 37 respondents: 31 PwP (14 women) and 6 informal caregivers (3 women). Descriptive statistics are reported. ResultsThe qualitative analysis of data resulted in 2 main themes. The first theme, core eHealth functionalities and their expected values, describes 6 desired eHealth functionalities for supporting PD co-care between PwP and HCPs: (1) self-tracking, (2) previsit forms, (3) graphical visualization, (4) clinical decision support, (5) self-care recommendations, and (6) asynchronous communication. The second theme, individual and organizational constraints, describes constraints that need to be addressed to succeed with an eHealth service for co-care. Individual constraints include eHealth literacy and acceptance; organizational constraints include teamwork and administrative workload. The majority of the questionnaire respondents (31/37, 84%) perceived that they would benefit from an eHealth service similar to the demonstrated prototype. All prototype functionalities were rated as very important or important by the majority of respondents (ranging from 86% to 97% per functionality). ConclusionsThis study adds to our knowledge on how PD co-care could be operationalized. Co-care implies a shift from episodic routine-driven care to more flexible care management that is driven by the mutual needs of patients and HCPs and supported by active information exchange between them, as well as automated information processing to generate patient-specific advice. More research is needed to further explore the concept of co-care in chronic care management and what it means for self-care and health care. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)RR2-10.2196/11278

The COVID-19 pandemic's effects on people's lives and society induced a need for rapid individual and collective sensemaking, including communication forums enabling stakeholders in the health ecosystem to share information, solve problems, and learn. This study specifically focused on the needs of the patients and family caregivers living with cystic fibrosis (CF) or primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD), conditions that lead to chronic infections and inflammation in the airways. We explored how CF and PCD patients, family caregivers, and clinicians collectively received, processed, and used information about COVID-19 to facilitate self-care and health care decisions at the beginning of the pandemic. We applied macrocognitive theory to analyze qualitatively the questions and answers exchanged in a series of six webinars facilitated by a CF learning network at the beginning of the pandemic (March – April 2020). We identified three macrocognitive functions: sensemaking, decision-making, and replanning. We further generated nine themes: (a) understanding the nature of COVID-19, (b) exploring self-care needs and possibilities, (c) understanding health care possibilities, (d) making decisions about prevention and testing, (e) managing COVID-19 within families, (f) adjusting planned care, (g) replanning chronic care management, (h) defining COVID-19 health care strategies, and (i) refining health care policies. The exchange of questions and answers played a central role in facilitating important cognitive processes, which enabled a rapid anticipation of needs and adaptation of services to support patients, family caregivers, and clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this observational cohort study was to determine the incidence and risk factors of active tuberculosis (TB) in persons living with HIV in a low endemic setting over a 17-year time period when combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) has been available. We thereby aimed to understand the usefulness of TB chemoprophylaxis among HIV patients with latent TB. Methods: All 2127 adult patients diagnosed with HIV January 1996-December 2013 at the Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm County were eligible. After exclusion of 259 patients transferred to other clinics, 1868 were followed until TB diagnosis, death or end of study period (December 2013). The median follow-up time was 7.9 years (interquartile range, 3.9-11.5). Results: Active TB was diagnosed in 92 patients, corresponding to an incidence rate of 6.2 cases (95% CI 5.1-7.6) per 1000 person-years with a significant decline over time. The majority (52%) of TB cases were diagnosed within 1 month from HIV diagnosis. Being a migrant from a TB-endemic region, was the only patient characteristic associated with significantly higher risk of active TB (Hazard Ration, HR: 8.54, 95% confidence interval, CI: 3.09-23.61 in a multivariate regression analysis controlling for route of HIV transmission, year of HIV diagnosis and CD4-cell count and viral load at HIV diagnosis. The number needed to treat to prevent one case of TB among patients in this high-risk group was 22 (95% CI 26-47). Conclusion: The incidence of active TB in persons living with HIV in Stockholm County declined significantly after the introduction of ART but was still 80 times higher than in the general population at the end of the study period. The therapeutic gain of chemoprophylaxis in low endemic settings should be weighed against costs and side effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In previous research we have learned that patients with chronic or complex diseases often experience difficulties when transitioning from hospital care to self-care in their home. We address these difficulties by developing an eHealth tool for patients - ePATH (electronic Patient Activation in Treatment at Home) - intended to empower each patient to manage their individual situation. We have employed a user-centered design process involving both patients and healthcare personnel to specify the content and functionality of ePATH. The system is deployed as a web application with secure login for patients. In this article, we describe the main content and functionality of the system that makes it possible for a patient to manage symptoms development in relation to treatment progression Interactive functionality, e.g., reminders and social support, is included to make the ePATH a useful and informative bridge between patients, next-of-kin and different caregivers. One lesson learned is that it is necessary to incorporate motivational components in the development of an eHealth tool to successfully overcome the "intention-behavior" gap. The self-determination theory of motivation can be used to ensure that important aspects are not missed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The need for services to support patient self-care and patient education has been emphasized for patients with chronic conditions. People with chronic conditions may spend many hours per year in health and social care services, but the majority of time is spent in self-care. This has implications in how health care is best organized. The term co-care specifically stresses the combination of health care professionals' and patients' resources, supported by appropriate (digital) tools for information exchange, to achieve the best possible health outcomes for patients. Developers of electronic health (eHealth) services need to consider both parties' specific needs for the service to be successful. Research on participants' experiences of participating in co-design sessions is scarce. Objective: The aim of this study was to describe different stakeholders' (people with chronic conditions, health care professionals, and facilitators) overall experiences of participating in co-design workshops aimed at designing an eHealth service for co-care for Parkinson disease, with a particular focus on the perceptions of values and challenges of co-design as well as improvement suggestions. Methods: We conducted 4 half-day co-design workshops with 7 people with Parkinson disease and 9 health care professionals. Data were collected during the workshop series using formative evaluations with participants and facilitators after each workshop, researchers' diary notes throughout the co-design process, and a Web-based questionnaire after the final workshop. Quantitative data from the questionnaire were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were triangulated and analyzed inductively using qualitative content analysis. Results: Quantitative ratings showed that most participants had a positive general experience of the co-design workshops. Qualitative analysis resulted in 6 categories and 30 subcategories describing respondents' perceptions of the values and challenges of co-design and their improvement suggestions. The categories concerned (1) desire for more stakeholder variation; (2) imbalance in the collaboration between stakeholders; (3) time investment and commitment paradox; (4) desire for both flexibility and guidance; (5) relevant workshop content, but concerns about goal achievement; and (6) hopes and doubts about future care. Conclusions: Based on the identified values and challenges, some paradoxical experiences were revealed, including (1) a desire to involve more stakeholders in co-design, while preferring to work in separate groups; (2) a desire for more preparation and discussions, while the required time investment was a concern; and (3) the experience that co-design is valuable for improving care, while there are doubts about the realization of co-care in practice. The value of co-design is not mainly about creating new services; it is about improving current practices to shape better care. The choice of methods needs to be adjusted to the stakeholder group and context, which will influence how they experience the process and outcomes of co-design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To codesign safety-netting strategies for primary and emergency care settings by integrating the experiences and ideas of patients, carers and clinicians., Design: A codesign process involving two focus group discussions, eight individual interviews and five workshops. All sessions were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis and reported using the Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research guidelines., Setting: Primary and emergency care in Sweden, focusing on the Stockholm region., Participants: 7 (5 women) individuals with patient expertise, 1 (man) individual with carer expertise, 18 (12 women) individuals with clinical expertise., Results: Three main categories reflecting strategies for applying safety-netting were developed: first, conveying safety-netting advice , which involves understanding patient concerns, tailoring communication and using appropriate modalities for communicating; second, ensuring common understanding, which involves summarising information, asking a teach-back question and anticipating questions post consultation; and third, supporting safety-netting behaviour, which involves facilitating reconsultation, helping patients and carers to navigate the health system and explaining the care context and its purpose., Conclusions: Our study highlights the collaborative nature of safety-netting, engaging both the clinician and patient, sometimes supported by carers, in an iterative process. Adding to previous research, our study also emphasises the importance of anticipating postconsultation inquiries and facilitating reconsultation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Patient-driven innovation in health care is an emerging phenomenon with benefits for patients with chronic conditions, such as cystic fibrosis (CF). However, previous research has not examined what may facilitate or hinder the implementation of such innovations from the provider perspective., Objective: The aim of this study was to explain variations in the adoption of a patient-driven innovation among CF clinics., Methods: A comparative multiple-case study was conducted on the adoption of a patient-controlled app to support self-management and collaboration with health care professionals (HCPs). Data collection and analysis were guided by the nonadoption, abandonment, spread, scale-up, and sustainability and complexity assessment tool (NASSS-CAT) framework. Data included user activity levels of patients and qualitative interviews with staff at 9 clinics (n=8, 88.9%, in Sweden; n=1, 11.1%, in the United States). We calculated the maximum and mean percentage of active users at each clinic and performed statistical process control (SPC) analysis to explore how the user activity level changed over time. Qualitative data were subjected to content analysis and complexity analysis and used to generate process maps. All data were then triangulated in a cross-case analysis., Results: We found no evidence of nonadoption or clear abandonment of the app. Distinct patterns of innovation adoption were discernable based on the maximum end-user activity for each clinic, which we labeled as low (16%-23%), middle (25%-47%), or high (58%-95%) adoption. SPC charts illustrated that the introduction of new app features and research-related activity had a positive influence on user activity levels. Variation in adoption was associated with providers' perceptions of care process complexity. A higher perceived complexity of the value proposition, adopter system, and organization was associated with lower adoption. In clinics that adopted the innovation early or those that relied on champions, user activity tended to plateau or decline, suggesting a negative impact on sustainability., Conclusions: For patient-driven innovations to be adopted and sustained in health care, understanding patient-provider interdependency and providers' perspectives on what generates value is essential., (©Pamela Mazzocato, Jamie Linnea Luckhaus, Moa Malmqvist Castillo, Johan Burnett, Andreas Hager, Gabriela Oates, Carolina Wannheden, Carl Savage. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 31.07.2024.)

Background: Research indicates that successful co-creation depends on a shared understanding of co-creation and its related concepts. However, it also shows that, in practice, views on co-creation and how to do it differ. This study aims to explore how patient innovators and researchers in a partnership research programme understand co-creation and how this understanding changes over time., Methods: An explorative longitudinal qualitative study was conducted with the 'Patients in the Driver's Seat' partnership research programme. Fifty-eight interviews were performed and analysed using a reflexive thematic approach., Findings: Four different ways of understanding co-creation were identified. These can be instrumentally conceptualized as themes using the inputs-process-outputs model: (1) combining different perspectives, experiences and backgrounds (inputs); (2) deliberately dynamic and exploratory (process); (3) striving for equity, not equality (process); and (4) diverse value creation, tangible and intangible (outputs). Together, these themes represent the varied understandings of co-creation among partnership programme members., Conclusions: Our study of patient innovators and researchers identified four distinct yet complementary understandings of co-creation. The study suggests that co-creation is the sum of its essential components, which can be divided into inputs, process, and outputs., Patient or Public Contribution: This study, and the partnership programme it explored, aims to improve the relevance of research for patients and informal caregivers through an improved understanding of the concept of co-creation within research on patient innovation. All patient innovators involved in the programme were invited, as interviewees and researchers, to contribute to the study design and data analysis., (© 2024 The Author(s). Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)