Implementation of a web-based tool for patient medication self-management: the Medication Self-titration Evaluation Programme (Med-STEP) for blood pressure control.

Richard W Grant, Jennifer C Pandiscio, Hannah Pajolek, Alyssa Woulfe, Alexandra Pelletier, Joseph Kvedar, Elyse R Park
{"title":"Implementation of a web-based tool for patient medication self-management: the Medication Self-titration Evaluation Programme (Med-STEP) for blood pressure control.","authors":"Richard W Grant,&nbsp;Jennifer C Pandiscio,&nbsp;Hannah Pajolek,&nbsp;Alyssa Woulfe,&nbsp;Alexandra Pelletier,&nbsp;Joseph Kvedar,&nbsp;Elyse R Park","doi":"10.14236/jhi.v20i1.48","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Informatics tools may help support hypertension management.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To design, implement and evaluate a web-based system for patient anti-hypertensive medication self-titration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Study stages included: six focus groups (50 patients) to identify barriers/facilitators to patient medication self-titration, software design informed by qualitative analysis of focus group responses and a six-month single-arm pilot study (20 patients) to assess implementation feasibility.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Focus groups emphasised patient need to feel confident that their own primary care providers were directly involved and approved of the titration protocol. Physicians required 3.3 ± 2.8 minutes/patient to create individualised six-step medication pathways for once-monthly blood pressure evaluations. Pilot participants (mean age of 51.5 ± 11 years, 45% women, mean baseline blood pressure 139/84 ± 12.2/7.5 mmHg) had five medication increases, two non-adherence self-reports, 52 months not requiring medication changes, 24 skipped months and 17 months with no evaluations due to technical issues. Four pilot patients dropped out before study completion. From baseline to study completion, blood pressure decreased among the 16 patients remaining in the study (8.0/4.7 mmHg, p = 0.03 for both systolic and diastolic pressures).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lessons learned included the benefit of qualitative patient analysis prior to system development and the feasibility of physicians designing individual treatment pathways. Any potential clinical benefits were offset by technical problems, the tendency for patients to skip their monthly self-evaluations and drop outs. To be more widely adopted such systems must effectively generalise to a wider range of patients and be integrated into clinical workflow.</p>","PeriodicalId":30591,"journal":{"name":"Informatics in Primary Care","volume":"20 1","pages":"57-67"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3829638/pdf/nihms500155.pdf","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Informatics in Primary Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14236/jhi.v20i1.48","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

Background: Informatics tools may help support hypertension management.

Objective: To design, implement and evaluate a web-based system for patient anti-hypertensive medication self-titration.

Methods: Study stages included: six focus groups (50 patients) to identify barriers/facilitators to patient medication self-titration, software design informed by qualitative analysis of focus group responses and a six-month single-arm pilot study (20 patients) to assess implementation feasibility.

Results: Focus groups emphasised patient need to feel confident that their own primary care providers were directly involved and approved of the titration protocol. Physicians required 3.3 ± 2.8 minutes/patient to create individualised six-step medication pathways for once-monthly blood pressure evaluations. Pilot participants (mean age of 51.5 ± 11 years, 45% women, mean baseline blood pressure 139/84 ± 12.2/7.5 mmHg) had five medication increases, two non-adherence self-reports, 52 months not requiring medication changes, 24 skipped months and 17 months with no evaluations due to technical issues. Four pilot patients dropped out before study completion. From baseline to study completion, blood pressure decreased among the 16 patients remaining in the study (8.0/4.7 mmHg, p = 0.03 for both systolic and diastolic pressures).

Conclusions: Lessons learned included the benefit of qualitative patient analysis prior to system development and the feasibility of physicians designing individual treatment pathways. Any potential clinical benefits were offset by technical problems, the tendency for patients to skip their monthly self-evaluations and drop outs. To be more widely adopted such systems must effectively generalise to a wider range of patients and be integrated into clinical workflow.

实施基于网络的患者药物自我管理工具:用于血压控制的药物自我滴定评估计划(Med-STEP)。
背景:信息学工具可能有助于支持高血压管理。目的:设计、实现并评价一种基于网络的降压药自行滴定系统。方法:研究阶段包括:6个焦点小组(50名患者),以确定患者药物自我滴定的障碍/促进因素;通过焦点小组反应的定性分析进行软件设计;进行为期6个月的单臂试点研究(20名患者),以评估实施可行性。结果:焦点小组强调患者需要有信心,他们自己的初级保健提供者直接参与并批准了滴定方案。医生需要3.3±2.8分钟/患者创建个体化的六步用药路径,每月一次血压评估。试验参与者(平均年龄51.5±11岁,45%为女性,平均基线血压139/84±12.2/7.5 mmHg)有5次用药增加,2次不依从性自我报告,52个月不需要药物改变,24个月跳过,17个月由于技术问题没有评估。四名试点患者在研究完成前退出。从基线到研究结束,研究中剩余的16名患者的血压下降(收缩压和舒张压均为8.0/4.7 mmHg, p = 0.03)。结论:经验教训包括在系统开发之前对患者进行定性分析的好处,以及医生设计个体治疗途径的可行性。任何潜在的临床益处都被技术问题所抵消,患者有跳过每月自我评估和退出的倾向。为了得到更广泛的采用,这些系统必须有效地推广到更广泛的患者,并整合到临床工作流程中。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信