应用远程测量技术评估癫痫、多发性硬化症和抑郁症的临床前景:德尔菲研究

JMIR neurotechnology Pub Date : 2023-04-25 DOI:10.2196/41439
J. Andrews, M. Craven, B. Guo, J. Weyer, Simon Lees, S. Zormpas, S. Thorpe, Julie Devonshire, V. San Antonio‐Arce, W. Whitehouse, J. Julie, Sam Malins, A. Hammers, A. Reif, H. Ruhé, F. Durbano, S. Barlati, Arjune Sen, J. Frederiksen, Alessandra Martinelli, A. Callén, J. Torras-Borrell, N. Berrocal-Izquierdo, A. Zabalza, R. Morriss, C. Hollis
{"title":"应用远程测量技术评估癫痫、多发性硬化症和抑郁症的临床前景:德尔菲研究","authors":"J. Andrews, M. Craven, B. Guo, J. Weyer, Simon Lees, S. Zormpas, S. Thorpe, Julie Devonshire, V. San Antonio‐Arce, W. Whitehouse, J. Julie, Sam Malins, A. Hammers, A. Reif, H. Ruhé, F. Durbano, S. Barlati, Arjune Sen, J. Frederiksen, Alessandra Martinelli, A. Callén, J. Torras-Borrell, N. Berrocal-Izquierdo, A. Zabalza, R. Morriss, C. Hollis","doi":"10.2196/41439","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Multiple sclerosis (MS), epilepsy, and depression are chronic central nervous system conditions in which remote measurement technology (RMT) may offer benefits compared with usual assessment. We previously worked with clinicians, patients, and researchers to develop 13 use cases for RMT: 5 in epilepsy (seizure alert, seizure counting, risk scoring, triage support, and trend analysis), 3 in MS (detecting silent progression, detecting depression in MS, and donating data to a biobank), and 5 in depression (detecting trends, reviewing treatment, self-management, comorbid monitoring, and carer alert).\n \n \n \n In this study, we aimed to evaluate the use cases and related implementation issues with an expert panel of clinicians external to our project consortium.\n \n \n \n We used a Delphi exercise to validate the use cases and suggest a prioritization among them and to ascertain the importance of a variety of implementation issues related to RMT. The expert panel included clinicians from across Europe who were external to the project consortium. The study had 2 survey rounds (n=23 and n=17) and a follow-up interview round (n=9). Data were analyzed for consensus between participants and for stability between survey rounds. The interviews explored the reasons for answers given in the survey.\n \n \n \n The findings showed high stability between rounds on questions related to specific use cases but lower stability on questions relating to wider issues around the implementation of RMT. Overall, questions on wider issues also had less consensus. All 5 use cases for epilepsy (seizure alert, seizure counting, risk scoring, triage support, and trend analysis) were considered beneficial, with consensus among participants above the a priori threshold for most questions, although use case 3 (risk scoring) was considered less likely to facilitate or catalyze care. There was very little consensus on the benefits of the use cases in MS, although this may have resulted from a higher dropout rate of MS clinicians (50%). Participants agreed that there would be benefits for all 5 of the depression use cases, although fewer questions on use case 4 (triage support) reached consensus agreement than for depression use cases 1 (detecting trends), 2 (reviewing treatment), 3 (self-management), and 5 (carer alert). The qualitative analysis revealed further insights into each use case and generated 8 themes on practical issues related to implementation.\n \n \n \n Overall, these findings inform the prioritization of use cases for RMT that could be developed in future work, which may include clinical trials, cost-effectiveness studies, and the commercial development of RMT products and services. Priorities for further development include the use of RMT to provide more accurate records of symptoms and treatment response than is currently possible and to provide data that could help inform patient triage and generate timely alerts for patients and carers.\n","PeriodicalId":73555,"journal":{"name":"JMIR neurotechnology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Perspectives on Using Remote Measurement Technology in Assessing Epilepsy, Multiple Sclerosis, and Depression: Delphi Study\",\"authors\":\"J. Andrews, M. Craven, B. Guo, J. Weyer, Simon Lees, S. Zormpas, S. Thorpe, Julie Devonshire, V. San Antonio‐Arce, W. Whitehouse, J. Julie, Sam Malins, A. Hammers, A. Reif, H. Ruhé, F. Durbano, S. Barlati, Arjune Sen, J. Frederiksen, Alessandra Martinelli, A. Callén, J. Torras-Borrell, N. Berrocal-Izquierdo, A. Zabalza, R. Morriss, C. Hollis\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/41439\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n Multiple sclerosis (MS), epilepsy, and depression are chronic central nervous system conditions in which remote measurement technology (RMT) may offer benefits compared with usual assessment. We previously worked with clinicians, patients, and researchers to develop 13 use cases for RMT: 5 in epilepsy (seizure alert, seizure counting, risk scoring, triage support, and trend analysis), 3 in MS (detecting silent progression, detecting depression in MS, and donating data to a biobank), and 5 in depression (detecting trends, reviewing treatment, self-management, comorbid monitoring, and carer alert).\\n \\n \\n \\n In this study, we aimed to evaluate the use cases and related implementation issues with an expert panel of clinicians external to our project consortium.\\n \\n \\n \\n We used a Delphi exercise to validate the use cases and suggest a prioritization among them and to ascertain the importance of a variety of implementation issues related to RMT. The expert panel included clinicians from across Europe who were external to the project consortium. The study had 2 survey rounds (n=23 and n=17) and a follow-up interview round (n=9). Data were analyzed for consensus between participants and for stability between survey rounds. The interviews explored the reasons for answers given in the survey.\\n \\n \\n \\n The findings showed high stability between rounds on questions related to specific use cases but lower stability on questions relating to wider issues around the implementation of RMT. Overall, questions on wider issues also had less consensus. All 5 use cases for epilepsy (seizure alert, seizure counting, risk scoring, triage support, and trend analysis) were considered beneficial, with consensus among participants above the a priori threshold for most questions, although use case 3 (risk scoring) was considered less likely to facilitate or catalyze care. There was very little consensus on the benefits of the use cases in MS, although this may have resulted from a higher dropout rate of MS clinicians (50%). Participants agreed that there would be benefits for all 5 of the depression use cases, although fewer questions on use case 4 (triage support) reached consensus agreement than for depression use cases 1 (detecting trends), 2 (reviewing treatment), 3 (self-management), and 5 (carer alert). The qualitative analysis revealed further insights into each use case and generated 8 themes on practical issues related to implementation.\\n \\n \\n \\n Overall, these findings inform the prioritization of use cases for RMT that could be developed in future work, which may include clinical trials, cost-effectiveness studies, and the commercial development of RMT products and services. Priorities for further development include the use of RMT to provide more accurate records of symptoms and treatment response than is currently possible and to provide data that could help inform patient triage and generate timely alerts for patients and carers.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":73555,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR neurotechnology\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR neurotechnology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/41439\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR neurotechnology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/41439","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

多发性硬化症(MS),癫痫和抑郁症是慢性中枢神经系统疾病,远程测量技术(RMT)与常规评估相比可能提供益处。我们之前与临床医生、患者和研究人员合作开发了13个RMT用例:5个用于癫痫(癫痫发作警报、癫痫发作计数、风险评分、分诊支持和趋势分析),3个用于多发性硬化症(检测无症状进展、检测多发性硬化症抑郁症,并将数据捐献给生物库),5个用于抑郁症(检测趋势、回顾治疗、自我管理、共病监测和护理人员警报)。在这项研究中,我们的目标是与项目联盟外部的临床医生专家小组一起评估用例和相关的实施问题。我们使用Delphi练习来验证用例,并建议它们之间的优先级,并确定与RMT相关的各种实现问题的重要性。专家小组包括来自欧洲各地的临床医生,他们不是项目联盟的成员。本研究分为2轮调查(n=23和n=17)和1轮随访访谈(n=9)。对数据进行了分析,以确保参与者之间的共识和调查轮次之间的稳定性。访谈探讨了调查中给出的答案的原因。结果表明,在与特定用例相关的问题上,轮次之间的稳定性很高,但是在与围绕RMT实现的更广泛的问题相关的问题上,稳定性较低。总体而言,关于更广泛议题的问题也缺乏共识。所有5个癫痫用例(癫痫发作警报、癫痫发作计数、风险评分、分诊支持和趋势分析)都被认为是有益的,参与者对大多数问题的共识高于先验阈值,尽管用例3(风险评分)被认为不太可能促进或催化护理。尽管这可能是由于MS临床医生较高的辍学率(50%),但对于MS用例的益处,人们几乎没有达成共识。参与者一致认为,所有5个抑郁症用例都将受益,尽管在用例4(分流支持)上达成共识的问题少于抑郁症用例1(检测趋势)、2(审查治疗)、3(自我管理)和5(护理人员警报)。定性分析揭示了对每个用例的进一步见解,并产生了与实现相关的8个实际问题的主题。总的来说,这些发现告知了RMT用例的优先级,这些用例可以在未来的工作中开发,其中可能包括临床试验,成本效益研究,以及RMT产品和服务的商业开发。进一步发展的优先事项包括使用RMT提供比目前可能的更准确的症状和治疗反应记录,并提供有助于为患者分流提供信息的数据,并为患者和护理人员及时发出警报。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinical Perspectives on Using Remote Measurement Technology in Assessing Epilepsy, Multiple Sclerosis, and Depression: Delphi Study
Multiple sclerosis (MS), epilepsy, and depression are chronic central nervous system conditions in which remote measurement technology (RMT) may offer benefits compared with usual assessment. We previously worked with clinicians, patients, and researchers to develop 13 use cases for RMT: 5 in epilepsy (seizure alert, seizure counting, risk scoring, triage support, and trend analysis), 3 in MS (detecting silent progression, detecting depression in MS, and donating data to a biobank), and 5 in depression (detecting trends, reviewing treatment, self-management, comorbid monitoring, and carer alert). In this study, we aimed to evaluate the use cases and related implementation issues with an expert panel of clinicians external to our project consortium. We used a Delphi exercise to validate the use cases and suggest a prioritization among them and to ascertain the importance of a variety of implementation issues related to RMT. The expert panel included clinicians from across Europe who were external to the project consortium. The study had 2 survey rounds (n=23 and n=17) and a follow-up interview round (n=9). Data were analyzed for consensus between participants and for stability between survey rounds. The interviews explored the reasons for answers given in the survey. The findings showed high stability between rounds on questions related to specific use cases but lower stability on questions relating to wider issues around the implementation of RMT. Overall, questions on wider issues also had less consensus. All 5 use cases for epilepsy (seizure alert, seizure counting, risk scoring, triage support, and trend analysis) were considered beneficial, with consensus among participants above the a priori threshold for most questions, although use case 3 (risk scoring) was considered less likely to facilitate or catalyze care. There was very little consensus on the benefits of the use cases in MS, although this may have resulted from a higher dropout rate of MS clinicians (50%). Participants agreed that there would be benefits for all 5 of the depression use cases, although fewer questions on use case 4 (triage support) reached consensus agreement than for depression use cases 1 (detecting trends), 2 (reviewing treatment), 3 (self-management), and 5 (carer alert). The qualitative analysis revealed further insights into each use case and generated 8 themes on practical issues related to implementation. Overall, these findings inform the prioritization of use cases for RMT that could be developed in future work, which may include clinical trials, cost-effectiveness studies, and the commercial development of RMT products and services. Priorities for further development include the use of RMT to provide more accurate records of symptoms and treatment response than is currently possible and to provide data that could help inform patient triage and generate timely alerts for patients and carers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信