3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effect of In-Person vs Video Training and Access to All Functions vs a Limited Subset of Functions on Portal Use Among Inpatients : A Randomized Clinical Trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          How do training and technology functions of an inpatient portal affect portal use, patient satisfaction, and patient involvement in their care while hospitalized?

          Findings

          In this randomized clinical trial of 2892 participants, patients who had access to in-person training (compared with a training video) or more portal functions (compared with a limited set of functions) had significantly greater inpatient portal use.

          Meaning

          These findings suggest that providing either in-person training or advanced portal functions can be a powerful approach to increase patients’ engagement with portals.

          Abstract

          This randomized clinical trial evaluates the effect of training and the availability of portal functions on inpatient portal use and on patient satisfaction and involvement with their care.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Inpatient portals provide patients with clinical data and information about their care and have the potential to influence patient engagement and experience. Although significant resources have been devoted to implementing these portals, evaluation of their effects has been limited.

          Objective

          To assess the effects of patient training and portal functionality on use of an inpatient portal and on patient satisfaction and involvement with care.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This randomized clinical trial was conducted from December 15, 2016, to August 31, 2019, at 6 noncancer hospitals that were part of a single health care system. Patients who were at least 18 years of age, identified English as their preferred language, were not involuntarily confined or detained, and agreed to be provided a tablet to access the inpatient portal during their stay were eligible for participation. Data were analyzed from May 1, 2019, to March 15, 2021.

          Interventions

          A 2 × 2 factorial intervention design was used to compare 2 levels of a training intervention (touch intervention, consisting of in-person training vs built-in video tutorial) and 2 levels of portal function availability (tech intervention) within an inpatient portal (all functions operational vs a limited subset of functions).

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The primary outcomes were inpatient portal use, measured by frequency and comprehensiveness of use, and patients’ satisfaction and involvement with their care.

          Results

          Of 2892 participants, 1641 were women (56.7%) with a median age of 47.0 (95% CI, 46.0-48.0) years. Most patients were White (2221 [76.8%]). The median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 1 (95% CI, 1-1) and the median length of stay was 6 (95% CI, 6-7) days. Notably, the in-person training intervention was found to significantly increase inpatient portal use (incidence rate ratio, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.25-1.44]) compared with the video tutorial. Patients who received in-person training had significantly higher odds of being comprehensive portal users than those who received the video tutorial (odds ratio, 20.75 [95% CI, 16.49-26.10]). Among patients who received the full-tech intervention, those who also received the in-person intervention used the portal more frequently (incidence rate ratio, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.25-1.48]) and more comprehensively (odds ratio, 22.52; [95% CI, 17.13-29.62]) than those who received the video tutorial. Patients who received in-person training had higher odds (OR, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.16-3.50]) of reporting being satisfied in the 6-month postdischarge survey. Similarly, patients who received the full-tech intervention had higher odds (OR, 2.06 [95%CI, 1.42-2.99]) of reporting being satisfied in the 6-month postdischarge survey.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          Providing in-person training or robust portal functionality increased inpatient engagement with the portal during the hospital stay. The effects of the training intervention suggest that providing personalized training to support use of this health information technology can be a powerful approach to increase patient engagement via portals.

          Trial Registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02943109

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Patient self-management of chronic disease in primary care.

          Patients with chronic conditions make day-to-day decisions about--self-manage--their illnesses. This reality introduces a new chronic disease paradigm: the patient-professional partnership, involving collaborative care and self-management education. Self-management education complements traditional patient education in supporting patients to live the best possible quality of life with their chronic condition. Whereas traditional patient education offers information and technical skills, self-management education teaches problem-solving skills. A central concept in self-management is self-efficacy--confidence to carry out a behavior necessary to reach a desired goal. Self-efficacy is enhanced when patients succeed in solving patient-identified problems. Evidence from controlled clinical trials suggests that (1) programs teaching self-management skills are more effective than information-only patient education in improving clinical outcomes; (2) in some circumstances, self-management education improves outcomes and can reduce costs for arthritis and probably for adult asthma patients; and (3) in initial studies, a self-management education program bringing together patients with a variety of chronic conditions may improve outcomes and reduce costs. Self-management education for chronic illness may soon become an integral part of high-quality primary care.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Meta-analysis: chronic disease self-management programs for older adults.

            Although enthusiasm is growing for self-management programs for chronic conditions, there are conflicting data regarding their effectiveness and no agreement on their essential components. To assess the effectiveness and essential components of self-management programs for hypertension, osteoarthritis, and diabetes mellitus. The authors searched multiple sources dated through September 2004, including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Nursing and Allied Health databases, and bibliographies of 87 previous reviews. Randomized trials that compared outcomes of self-management interventions with a control or with usual care for diabetes mellitus, osteoarthritis, or hypertension; outcomes included hemoglobin A1c level, fasting blood glucose level, weight, blood pressure, pain, or function. Two reviewers independently identified trials and extracted data regarding whether the intervention used tailored adjustments to meet individual patient needs, a group setting, feedback, and psychological services, and whether the intervention was provided by the patient's usual physician. Of 780 studies screened, 53 studies contributed data to the random-effects meta-analysis (26 diabetes studies, 14 osteoarthritis studies, and 13 hypertension studies). Self-management interventions led to a statistically and clinically significant pooled effect size of -0.36 (95% CI, -0.52 to -0.21) for hemoglobin A1c, equivalent to a reduction in hemoglobin A1c level of about 0.81%. Self-management interventions decreased systolic blood pressure by 5 mm Hg (effect size, -0.39 [CI, -0.51 to -0.28]) and decreased diastolic blood pressure by 4.3 mm Hg (effect size, -0.51 [CI, -0.73 to -0.30]). Pooled effects of self-management interventions were statistically significant but clinically trivial for pain and function outcomes for osteoarthritis. No consistent results supported any of the 5 characteristics examined as essential for program success. Studies had variable quality, and possible publication bias was evident. Self-management programs for diabetes mellitus and hypertension probably produce clinically important benefits. The elements of the programs most responsible for benefits cannot be determined from existing data, and this inhibits specification of optimally effective or cost-effective programs. Osteoarthritis self-management programs do not appear to have clinically beneficial effects on pain or function.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Self-management education programs in chronic disease: a systematic review and methodological critique of the literature.

              Self-management programs have been widely reported to help patients manage symptoms and contain utilization of health care resources for several chronic conditions, but to date no systematic review across multiple chronic diseases has been reported. We evaluated the efficacy of patient self-management educational programs for chronic diseases and critically reviewed their methodology. We searched MEDLINE and HealthSTAR for the period January 1, 1964, through January 31, 1999, then hand searched the reference section of each article for other relevant publications. We included studies if a self-management education intervention for a chronic disease was reported, a concurrent control group was included, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Two authors reviewed each study and extracted the data on clinical outcomes. We included 71 trials of self-management education. Trial methods varied substantially and were suboptimal. Diabetic patients involved with self-management education programs demonstrated reductions in glycosylated hemoglobin levels (summary effect size, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17-0.74); diabetic patients had improvement in systolic blood pressure (summary effect size, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.01-0.39); and asthmatic patients experienced fewer attacks (log rate ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35-0.83). Although we found a trend toward a small benefit, arthritis self-management education programs were not associated with statistically significant effects. Evidence of publication bias existed. Self-management education programs resulted in small to moderate effects for selected chronic diseases. In light of evidence of publication bias, further trials that adhere to a standard methodology would help clarify whether self-management education is worthwhile.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                13 September 2022
                September 2022
                13 September 2022
                : 5
                : 9
                : e2231321
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Family and Community Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus
                [2 ]Center for the Advancement of Team Science, Analytics, and Systems Thinking, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus
                [3 ]Dayton Children’s Hospital Center for Health Equity, Dayton, Ohio
                [4 ]Department of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus
                [5 ]Division of General Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus
                [6 ]Division of Health Services Management and Policy, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus
                [7 ]Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: July 22, 2022.
                Published: September 13, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.31321
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2022 McAlearney AS et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Ann Scheck McAlearney, ScD, MS, Center for the Advancement of Team Science, Analytics, and Systems Thinking, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, 700 Ackerman Rd, Ste 4000, Columbus, OH 43202 ( ann.mcalearney@ 123456osumc.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Drs McAlearney and Huerta had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: McAlearney, Walker, Sieck, Fareed, Hefner, Gaughan, Moffatt-Bruce, Rizer, Huerta.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: McAlearney, Walker, Sieck, Fareed, MacEwan, Hefner, Di Tosto, Gaughan, Sova, Rush, Huerta.
                Drafting of the manuscript: McAlearney, Walker, Sieck, Fareed, MacEwan, Hefner, Di Tosto, Gaughan, Rush, Moffatt-Bruce, Huerta.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: McAlearney, Walker, Sieck, Fareed, MacEwan, Hefner, Gaughan, Sova, Rush, Rizer, Huerta.
                Statistical analysis: Walker, Fareed, Di Tosto, Sova, Huerta.
                Obtained funding: McAlearney, Sieck, Huerta.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: McAlearney, Sieck, Hefner, Gaughan, Sova, Rush, Rizer, Huerta.
                Supervision: McAlearney, Fareed, Gaughan, Moffatt-Bruce, Huerta.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was supported by grants R01HS024091, R21HS024767, and P30HS024379 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The sponsor had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 3.
                Additional Contributions: We thank our research team members who assisted with this project, including Seth Scarborough, MAS (all from The Ohio State University). These individuals were not compensated financially beyond their salaries.
                Additional Information: We thank all of the study participants for their involvment in the study.
                Article
                zoi220886
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.31321
                9471980
                36098967
                4bc73198-adc5-49a7-ac9d-13a25f786c31
                Copyright 2022 McAlearney AS et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 25 April 2022
                : 22 July 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Health Informatics

                Comments

                Comment on this article