A MIXED-METHODS EVALUATION OF STANDALONE PERSONAL HEALTH RECORD USE BY PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES.

Kevin T Fuji, Amy A Abbott, Kimberly A Galt
{"title":"A MIXED-METHODS EVALUATION OF STANDALONE PERSONAL HEALTH RECORD USE BY PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES.","authors":"Kevin T Fuji, Amy A Abbott, Kimberly A Galt","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Self-management of diabetes is key for achieving positive clinical outcomes, with personal health records (PHRs) proposed as a patient-centered technology for facilitating self-care. However, few studies have described patient engagement with a PHR, including facilitators and barriers to use from the perspective of actual users.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare use of a standalone PHR by patients with Type 2 diabetes to usual care through assessment of self-care behaviors, and short-term impact on social cognitive outcomes and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods design combining a comparative effectiveness pilot with qualitative interviews was used. Qualitative interviews explored the primary outcome of changes in self-care behaviors, while quantitative data obtained from health records and a survey focused on social cognitive and clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 117 participants completed the study (intervention group = 56, control group = 61). Only 23 individuals used the PHR at least once after baseline. Five themes emerged from the qualitative analysis describing participants' experiences with the PHR and identifying reasons for lack of engagement. Quantitative findings supported qualitative results with no significant changes in HbA1c and only a significant increase in diabetes knowledge in the intervention group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Study findings revealed low PHR uptake and minimal impact on study outcomes, including lack of communication and information-sharing between patients and providers. Future research should explore the fit of PHRs within the context of other self-management tools, integration with provider workflow, and the need for enhanced functionalities beyond an information repository to optimally support patient self-care.</p>","PeriodicalId":40052,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in health information management / AHIMA, American Health Information Management Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8649703/pdf/phim0018-0001e.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives in health information management / AHIMA, American Health Information Management Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Self-management of diabetes is key for achieving positive clinical outcomes, with personal health records (PHRs) proposed as a patient-centered technology for facilitating self-care. However, few studies have described patient engagement with a PHR, including facilitators and barriers to use from the perspective of actual users.

Objectives: To compare use of a standalone PHR by patients with Type 2 diabetes to usual care through assessment of self-care behaviors, and short-term impact on social cognitive outcomes and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c).

Methods: A mixed-methods design combining a comparative effectiveness pilot with qualitative interviews was used. Qualitative interviews explored the primary outcome of changes in self-care behaviors, while quantitative data obtained from health records and a survey focused on social cognitive and clinical outcomes.

Results: A total of 117 participants completed the study (intervention group = 56, control group = 61). Only 23 individuals used the PHR at least once after baseline. Five themes emerged from the qualitative analysis describing participants' experiences with the PHR and identifying reasons for lack of engagement. Quantitative findings supported qualitative results with no significant changes in HbA1c and only a significant increase in diabetes knowledge in the intervention group.

Conclusions: Study findings revealed low PHR uptake and minimal impact on study outcomes, including lack of communication and information-sharing between patients and providers. Future research should explore the fit of PHRs within the context of other self-management tools, integration with provider workflow, and the need for enhanced functionalities beyond an information repository to optimally support patient self-care.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对 2 型糖尿病患者使用独立个人健康记录的混合方法评估。
背景:糖尿病患者的自我管理是取得良好临床疗效的关键,个人健康记录(PHR)被认为是一种以患者为中心的促进自我护理的技术。然而,很少有研究从实际使用者的角度描述患者参与个人健康记录的情况,包括使用的促进因素和障碍:通过评估自我护理行为以及对社会认知结果和血红蛋白A1c(HbA1c)的短期影响,比较2型糖尿病患者使用独立个人健康记录仪和常规护理的情况:方法:采用混合方法设计,将比较效果试验与定性访谈相结合。定性访谈探讨了自我护理行为变化的主要结果,而从健康记录和调查中获得的定量数据则侧重于社会认知和临床结果:共有 117 人完成了研究(干预组 56 人,对照组 61 人)。只有 23 人在基线后至少使用过一次个人健康记录仪。定性分析中出现了五个主题,描述了参与者使用个人健康记录仪的体验,并找出了缺乏参与的原因。定量结果支持定性结果,干预组的 HbA1c 没有显著变化,糖尿病知识仅有显著增加:研究结果表明,PHR 的使用率较低,对研究结果的影响微乎其微,包括患者和医疗服务提供者之间缺乏沟通和信息共享。未来的研究应探讨个人健康记录仪与其他自我管理工具的匹配性、与医疗服务提供者工作流程的整合,以及除信息库外增强功能的必要性,从而为患者的自我护理提供最佳支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Perspectives in Health Information Management is a scholarly, peer-reviewed research journal whose mission is to advance health information management practice and to encourage interdisciplinary collaboration between HIM professionals and others in disciplines supporting the advancement of the management of health information. The primary focus is to promote the linkage of practice, education, and research and to provide contributions to the understanding or improvement of health information management processes and outcomes.
期刊最新文献
The Role of Clinical Decision Support Systems in Preventing Stroke in Primary Care: A Systematic Review. Best Practices for the Design of COVID-19 Dashboards. Medical Scribes: Symptom or Cause of Impeded Evolution of a Transformative Artificial Intelligence in the Electronic Health Record? Risk of Duplicate ICD Codes for Orthopedic and Injury Related Research. Quality Assessment of the Road Traffic Health and Safety Apps with a Focus on the Five Rights of Information Management.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1