Background: The COVID-19 pandemic created an urgent need to act to reduce the spread of the virus and alleviate congestion from healthcare services, protect healthcare providers, and help them maintain satisfactory quality and safety of care. Remote COVID-19 monitoring platforms emerged as potential solutions.Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the capacity and contribution of two different platforms used to remotely monitor patients with COVID-19 to maintain quality, safety, and patient engagement in care, as well as their acceptability, usefulness, and user-friendliness from the user's perspective. The first platform is focused on telecare phone calls (Telecare-Covid), and the second is a telemonitoring app (CareSimple-Covid).Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study. The data were collected through a phone survey from May to August 2020. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and t-test analysis. Participants' responses and comments on open-ended questions were analyzed using content analysis to identify certain issues and challenges and potential avenues for improving the platforms.Results: Fifty one patients participated in the study. Eighteen participants used the CareSimple-Covid platform and 33 participants used the Telecare-Covid platform. Overall, the satisfaction rate for quality and safety of care for the two platforms was 80%. Over 88% of the users on each platform considered the platforms' services to be engaging, useful, user-friendly, and appropriate to their needs. The survey identified a few significant differences in users' perceptions of each platform: empathy toward users and the quality and safety of the care received were rated significantly higher on the CareSimple-Covid platform than on the Telecare-Covid platform. Users appreciated four aspects of these telehealth approaches: (1) the ease of access to services and the availability of care team members; (2) the user-friendliness of the platforms; (3) the continuity of care provided, and (4) the wide range of services delivered. Users identified some technical limitations and raised certain issues, such as the importance of maintaining human contact, data security, and confidentiality. Improvement suggestions include promoting access to connected devices; enhancing communications between institutions, healthcare users, and the public on confidentiality and personal data protection standards; and integrating a participatory approach to telehealth platform development and deployment efforts.Conclusion: This study provides preliminary evidence that the two remote monitoring platforms are well-received by users, with very few significant differences between them concerning users' experiences and views. This type of program could be considered for use in a post-pandemic era and for other post-hospitalization clienteles. To maximize efficiency, the areas for improvement and the issues identified should be addressed with a patient-centered approach.
Background Given the magnitude and speed of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, achieving timely and effective manual contact tracing has been a challenging task. Early in the pandemic, contact tracing apps generated substantial enthusiasm due to their potential for automating tracing and reducing transmission rates while enabling targeted confinement strategies. However, although surveys demonstrate public interest in using such apps, their actual uptake remains limited. Their social acceptability is challenged by issues around privacy, fairness, and effectiveness, among other concerns. Objective This study aims to examine the extent to which design and implementation considerations for contact tracing apps are detailed in the available literature, focusing on aspects related to participatory and responsible eHealth innovation, and synthesize recommendations that support the development of successful COVID-19 contact tracing apps and related eHealth technologies. Methods Searches were performed on five databases, and articles were selected based on eligibility criteria. Papers pertaining to the design, implementation, or acceptability of contact tracing apps were included. Articles published since 2019, written in English or French, and for which the full articles were available were considered eligible for analysis. To assess the scope of the knowledge found in the current literature, we used three complementary frameworks: (1) the Holistic Framework to Improve the Uptake and Impact of eHealth Technologies, (2) the Montreal model, and (3) the Responsible Innovation in Health Assessment Tool. Results A total of 63 articles qualified for the final analysis. Less than half of the selected articles cited the need for a participatory process (n=25, 40%), which nonetheless was the most frequently referenced item of the Framework to Improve the Uptake and Impact of eHealth Technologies. Regarding the Montreal model, stakeholder consultation was the most frequently described level of engagement in the development of contact tracing apps (n=24, 38%), while collaboration and partnership were cited the least (n=2, 3%). As for the Responsible Innovation in Health framework, all the articles (n=63, 100%) addressed population health, whereas only 2% (n=1) covered environmental considerations. Conclusions Most studies lacked fundamental aspects of eHealth development and implementation. Our results demonstrate that stakeholders of COVID-19 contact tracing apps lack important information to be able to critically appraise this eHealth innovation. This may have contributed to the modest uptake of contact tracing apps worldwide. We make evidence-informed recommendations regarding data management, communication, stakeholder engagement, user experience, and implementation strategies for the successful and responsible development of contact tracing apps.
BACKGROUND As Covid-19 pandemic circumstances created the need to act to reduce the spread of the virus and alleviate healthcare services from congestions, protect healthcare providers and support them in maintaining a satisfactory quality and safety of care, Covid19 patient remote monitoring platforms quickly emerged. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate the capacity and contribution of two different platforms' services to monitor remotely patients with Covid-19. The first is a platform of telecare calls (Telecare-Covid), and the second platform is a telemonitoring app (Tactio-Covid). The study sought to examine the differences in acceptability, usefulness, and conviviality of those two different platforms services from users' perspectives and evaluate their contribution in maintaining the quality and safety of care, and engaging patients in their care. METHODS We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study using a survey. The data were collected through phone calls between May and August 2020. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and t-test analysis. The participants' responses and comments on open-ended questions were analyzed using content analysis. The research approach through descriptive statistics allowed us to examine the differences in acceptability, usefulness, and conviviality of those two different platforms services from users' perspectives and determine their contributions to maintaining the quality and safety of care and promoting patient engagement. Whereas the content analysis of the general comments enabled the identification of certain stakes and challenges and improvements paths of the platforms. RESULTS In total, 51 patients participated in the study. 18 participants have used the Tactio-Covid platform and 33 participants have used the Telecare-Covid platform. Overall, the satisfaction rate regarding the quality and safety of the care services provided through the two platforms was 80%. Over 88% of users on each platform considered the services offered by the two platforms as engaging, useful, convivial, and meet their needs. The survey identified very few significant differences in users' perceptions regarding certain aspects on each platform. The survey identified four well-appreciated domains by the platforms’ users: (1) the ease of access and the proximity of care teams, and (2) the conviviality of the platform features (3) the continuity of care, and (4) the multitude of services. Certain stakes and limits such as the importance of maintaining human contact and confidentiality have been also identified and suggestions for improvement have been formulated. CONCLUSIONS This study provided preliminary evidence suggesting that the two remote monitoring platforms were well-received by users by users with very few significant differences between users' experience and perspectives over the two platforms. This type of program can be considered in a post-pandemic era and for other post-hospitalization clienteles. To maximize efficiency, the areas for improvement and the issues identified should be considered in a patient-centered manner. CLINICALTRIAL NA
BACKGROUND Given the magnitude and speed of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, public health systems worldwide were unable to perform manual contact tracing in a timely and effective manner. Contact tracing apps have been met with significant enthusiasm regarding their potential for automation and reduction of transmission rates, while enabling targeted reconfinement strategies. However, while surveys demonstrate public interest in utilizing such apps, their actual uptake remains limited. Their social acceptability is challenged by questions on privacy, fairness and effectiveness, among other concerns. OBJECTIVE This review examined the extent to which design and implementation considerations of contact tracing apps are detailed in the available literature, focusing on elements related to participatory and responsible eHealth innovation. We make a series of recommendations to support the development of successful COVID-19 contact tracing apps and related eHealth technologies. METHODS Searches were performed on five databases and articles were selected based on eligibility criteria. Papers pertaining to the design, implementation and/or acceptability of contact tracing apps were included. Articles published since 2019, written in English or French and to which full articles were available were considered eligible for analysis. To assess the breadth of elements found in the current literature, we used three complementary frameworks: (1) the Holistic Framework to Improve the Uptake and Impact of eHealth Technologies, (2) the Montreal Model and (3) the Responsible Innovation in Health (RIH) Assessment Tool. RESULTS A total of 63 articles qualified for final analysis. Less than half of the selected articles cited the need for a participatory process (40%), nonetheless constituting the most frequently referenced item of the Framework to Improve the Uptake and Impact of eHealth Technologies. In regard to the Montreal model, stakeholder consultation was the most frequently described level of engagement in the development of contact tracing apps (38%), while collaboration and partnership were cited the least (3%). As for the RIH framework, population health (100%) was addressed in all articles, whereas only 2% covered environmental considerations. CONCLUSIONS Most studies lacked key components of eHealth development and implementation. Results demonstrate that stakeholders of COVID-19 contact tracing apps lack important information to critically appraise this eHealth innovation and may have contributed to the modest uptake of contact tracing apps. We recommend a participatory approach in the co-creation and implementation of such e-Health tools, in addition to comprehensive reporting, observational evidence and incentives for utilization.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.