Klara Greffin1, Silke Schmidt2, Neeltje van den Berg3, Wolfgang Hoffmann3, Oliver Ritter4, Michael Oeff5, Georg Schomerus6, Holger Muehlan2. 1. Department of Psychology, Chair of Health and Prevention, University of Greifswald, Robert-Blum-Str. 13, 17489, Greifswald, Germany. klara.greffin@uni-greifswald.de. 2. Department of Psychology, Chair of Health and Prevention, University of Greifswald, Robert-Blum-Str. 13, 17489, Greifswald, Germany. 3. Institute of Community Medicine, Section Epidemiology of Health Care and Community Health, University Medicine Greifswald, Ellernholzstraße 1-2, 17475, Greifswald, Germany. 4. Brandenburg City Hospital, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Fehrbelliner Str. 38, 16816, Neuruppin, Germany. 5. Brandenburg City Hospital, Hochstraße 29, 14770, Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany. 6. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medicine Leipzig, Semmelweisstraße 10, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although telemedical applications are increasingly used in the area of both mental and physical illness, there is no quality of life (QoL) instrument that takes into account the specific context of the healthcare setting. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine a concept of quality of life in telemedical care to inform the development of a setting-sensitive patient-reported outcome measure. METHODS: Overall, 63 semi-structured single interviews and 15 focus groups with 68 participants have been conducted to determine the impact of telemedical care on QoL. Participants were patients with chronic physical or mental illnesses, with or without telemedicine supported healthcare as well as telemedical professionals. Mayring's content analysis approach was used to encode the qualitative data using MAXQDA software. RESULTS: The majority of aspects that influence the QoL of patients dealing with chronic conditions or mental illnesses could be assigned to an established working model of QoL. However, some aspects that were considered important (e. g. perceived safety) were not covered by the pre-existing domains. For that reason, we re-conceptualized the working model of QoL and added a sixth domain, referred to as healthcare-related domain. CONCLUSION: Interviewing patients and healthcare professionals brought forth specific aspects of QoL evolving in telemedical contexts. These results reinforce the assumption that existing QoL measurements lack sensitivity to assess the intended outcomes of telemedical applications. We will address this deficiency by a telemedicine-related re-conceptualization of the assessment of QoL and the development of a suitable add-on instrument based on the resulting category system of this study.
BACKGROUND: Although telemedical applications are increasingly used in the area of both mental and physical illness, there is no quality of life (QoL) instrument that takes into account the specific context of the healthcare setting. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine a concept of quality of life in telemedical care to inform the development of a setting-sensitive patient-reported outcome measure. METHODS: Overall, 63 semi-structured single interviews and 15 focus groups with 68 participants have been conducted to determine the impact of telemedical care on QoL. Participants were patients with chronic physical or mental illnesses, with or without telemedicine supported healthcare as well as telemedical professionals. Mayring's content analysis approach was used to encode the qualitative data using MAXQDA software. RESULTS: The majority of aspects that influence the QoL of patients dealing with chronic conditions or mental illnesses could be assigned to an established working model of QoL. However, some aspects that were considered important (e. g. perceived safety) were not covered by the pre-existing domains. For that reason, we re-conceptualized the working model of QoL and added a sixth domain, referred to as healthcare-related domain. CONCLUSION: Interviewing patients and healthcare professionals brought forth specific aspects of QoL evolving in telemedical contexts. These results reinforce the assumption that existing QoL measurements lack sensitivity to assess the intended outcomes of telemedical applications. We will address this deficiency by a telemedicine-related re-conceptualization of the assessment of QoL and the development of a suitable add-on instrument based on the resulting category system of this study.
Entities:
Keywords:
Concept elicitation; Patient-reported outcome measure; Quality of life; Telemedicine
Authors: Sanjay Sood; Victor Mbarika; Shakhina Jugoo; Reena Dookhy; Charles R Doarn; Nupur Prakash; Ronald C Merrell Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Sally C Inglis; Robyn A Clark; Finlay A McAlister; Simon Stewart; John G F Cleland Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Albert W Wu; Robert S Miller; Roxanne E Jensen; Elissa T Bantug; Antonio C Wolff Journal: Cancer J Date: 2011 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.360
Authors: Abdullah Pandor; Tim Gomersall; John W Stevens; Jenny Wang; Abdallah Al-Mohammad; Ameet Bakhai; John G F Cleland; Martin R Cowie; Ruth Wong Journal: Heart Date: 2013-05-16 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: George Demiris; Lawrence B Afrin; Stuart Speedie; Karen L Courtney; Manu Sondhi; Vivian Vimarlund; Christian Lovis; William Goossen; Cecil Lynch Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2007-10-18 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: K Haraldstad; A Wahl; R Andenæs; J R Andersen; M H Andersen; E Beisland; C R Borge; E Engebretsen; M Eisemann; L Halvorsrud; T A Hanssen; A Haugstvedt; T Haugland; V A Johansen; M H Larsen; L Løvereide; B Løyland; L G Kvarme; P Moons; T M Norekvål; L Ribu; G E Rohde; K H Urstad; S Helseth Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 4.147