Cargando…

Patient and healthcare professional eHealth literacy and needs for systemic sclerosis support: a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES: We engaged patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) and healthcare professionals to assess electronic health (eHealth) literacy and needs relating to web-based support using internet-based information and communication technologies (ICT). METHODS: We employed an explanatory sequential mixe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kocher, Agnes, Simon, Michael, Dwyer, Andrew A, Blatter, Catherine, Bogdanovic, Jasmina, Künzler-Heule, Patrizia, Villiger, Peter M, Dan, Diana, Distler, Oliver, Walker, Ulrich A, Nicca, Dunja
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8413951/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34475248
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2021-001783
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: We engaged patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) and healthcare professionals to assess electronic health (eHealth) literacy and needs relating to web-based support using internet-based information and communication technologies (ICT). METHODS: We employed an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, we conducted a cross-sectional survey in patients (n=101) and professionals (n=47). Next, we conducted three focus groups with patients, family members and professionals (n=17). RESULTS: Of patients, 89.1% used ICT at least weekly for private communication. Patients reported relatively high comprehension of eHealth information ([Formula: see text] =6.7, 95% CI: 6.2 to 7.3, range 1–10), yet were less confident evaluating information reliability ([Formula: see text] =5.8, 95% CI: 5.1 to 6.4) and finding eHealth apps ([Formula: see text] =4.8, 95% CI: 4.2 to 5.4). Patients and professionals reported little experience with web-based self-management support. Focus groups revealed ‘considering non-ICT-accessible groups’ and ‘fitting patients’ and professionals’ technology’ as crucial for acceptability. In relation to understanding/appraising eHealth, participants highlighted that general SSc information is not tailored to individual’s disease course. Recommendations included ‘providing timely, understandable and safe information’ and ‘empowering end-users in ICT and health decision-making skills’. Professionals expressed concerns about lacking resources. Patients were concerned about data security and person-centredness. Key eHealth drivers included ‘addressing end-user perceptions’ and ‘putting people at the centre of technology’. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and professionals need education/training to support uptake of eHealth resources. Key elements include guiding patients to timely/reliable information and using eHealth to optimise patient–provider communication. Design that is responsive to end-users’ needs and considers individuals with limited eHealth literacy and/or ICT access appears to be critical for acceptability.