Cargando…

Patients’ preferences regarding the digital capturing of patient-reported outcomes: planning the future follow-up in a prospective heart failure registry

AIMS: Digital health technologies have the potential to improve patient care sustainably. A digital capturing of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) could facilitate patients’ surveillance and endpoint assessment within clinical trials especially in heart failure (HF) patients. However, data r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: König, Sebastian, Leiner, Johannes, Nitsche, Anne, Mouratis, Konstantinos, Schanner, Carolin, Sommerschuh, Anett, Hindricks, Gerhard, Meier-Hellmann, Andreas, Kuhlen, Ralf, Bollmann, Andreas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9707941/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36713095
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehjdh/ztab074
Descripción
Sumario:AIMS: Digital health technologies have the potential to improve patient care sustainably. A digital capturing of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) could facilitate patients’ surveillance and endpoint assessment within clinical trials especially in heart failure (HF) patients. However, data regarding the availability of digital infrastructure and patients’ willingness to use digital health solutions are scarce. Therefore, we conducted a survey as part of a digital-based HF registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Helios Heart registry (H(2)-registry) has been introduced as a prospective registry being based on digitally augmented processes throughout the whole trial conduction from patients’ selection to data collection and follow-up (FU). Patient-reported outcome measures are captured paper-based at recruitment, but patients are offered two digital solutions for FU. Overall, 125 patients (mean age 67.8 years, 34.4% female) were included in the single-centre run-in phase of 16 weeks. Of them, 52.0% were not interested in any digital contact as part of the FU. If digital PROM capturing was conceivable, a web-based solution (70.0%) was preferred to an application-based approach (30.0%). Discrepancies occurred regarding the availability of email accounts and smartphones. Patients in the non-digital group were older (72.0 years vs. 63.2 years, P < 0.01) and more frequently female (female sex, non-digital vs. digital group: 47.7% vs. 20.0%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our survey illustrated difficulties of implementing a digital FU to record PROMs in a contemporary HF cohort in particular among older patients. Further research is required to specify reasons in case of patients’ unwillingness and to better tailor digital health solutions to patients’ specific needs.