Electronic Symptom Reporting Between Patient and Provider for Improved Health Care Service Quality: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Part 1: State of the Art

Abstract

BackgroundOver the last two decades, the number of studies on electronic symptom reporting has increased greatly. However, the field is very heterogeneous: the choices of patient groups, health service innovations, and research targets seem to involve a broad range of foci. To move the field forward, it is necessary to build on work that has been done and direct further research to the areas holding most promise. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on electronic communication between patient and provider to improve health care service quality, presented in two parts. Part 2 investigates the methodological quality and effects of the RCTs, and demonstrates some promising benefits of electronic symptom reporting.ObjectiveTo give a comprehensive overview of the most mature part of this emerging field regarding (1) patient groups, (2) health service innovations, and (3) research targets relevant to electronic symptom reporting.MethodsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and IEEE Xplore for original studies presented in English-language articles published from 1990 to November 2011. Inclusion criteria were RCTs of interventions where patients or parents reported health information electronically to the health care system for health care purposes and were given feedback.ResultsOf 642 records identified, we included 32 articles representing 29 studies. The included articles were published from 2002, with 24 published during the last 5 years. The following five patient groups were represented: respiratory and lung diseases (12 studies), cancer (6), psychiatry (6), cardiovascular (3), and diabetes (1). In addition to these, 1 study had a mix of three groups. All included studies, except 1, focused on long-term conditions. We identified four categories of health service innovations: consultation support (7 studies), monitoring with clinician support (12), self-management with clinician support (9), and therapy (1). Most of the research (21/29, 72%) was conducted within four combinations: consultation support innovation in the cancer group (5/29, 17%), monitoring innovation in the respiratory and lung diseases group (8/29, 28%), and self-management innovations in psychiatry (4/29, 14%) and in the respiratory and lung diseases group (4/29, 14%). Research targets in the consultation support studies focused on increased patient centeredness, while monitoring and self-management mainly aimed at documenting health benefits. All except 1 study aiming for reduced health care costs were in the monitoring group.ConclusionRCT-based research on electronic symptom reporting has developed enormously since 2002. Research including additional patient groups or new combinations of patient groups with the four identified health service innovations can be expected in the near future. We suggest that developing a generic model (not diagnosis specific) for electronic patient symptom reporting for long-term conditions may benefit the field.

Clinic-Based Versus Outsourced Implementation of a Diabetes Health Literacy Intervention

“…Electronic health records and mobile consumer technologies may aid these efforts. 43,44 From a literacy perspective, using technology for action plans or other engagement activities would increase the proficiency required by patients to assume self-care roles. The result might widen literacy disparities in knowledge, behavior, and outcomes.…”

Internet Use and Access to Health Information among Canadians: Are the Elderly on the Sidelines?

“…At the individual level, a majority of those who access health information online found the information useful (92%) and learned something new (81%) [24]. Online health information seekers also reported greater level of empowerment and awareness of their role in their health [3,10,[24][25][26]. Approximately 80% sought health information online for convenience, the volume of recent health information available, and the anonymity [27].…”

A Core Outcome Set for Children With Feeding Tubes and Neurologic Impairment: A Systematic Review

“…12,13 Moreover, evidence suggests that patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) enable patient-centered care that guides the clinical decisionmaking process. 14,15 Therefore, COS should be a composite of both clinically observed indicators as well as PROMs, as recommended in a number of recent outcome initiatives, such as Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) and Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET). 13,15 The OMERACT Filter 2.0 is a framework for researchers to determine what outcomes should be measured, how they should be measured, and for deciding which outcomes should be selected when creating a COS. Envisioned in 1992 and continually developed through consensus-driven discussion, OMERACT was established as a procedural framework for the identification and selection of valid, responsive, and feasible rheumatologic outcomes in clinical trials.…”