Evidence mapPaperPMID 38545697Full record

Observational studyJMIR mHealth and uHealth2024

Implementing Systematic Patient-Reported Measures for Chronic Conditions Through the Naveta Value-Based Telemedicine Initiative: Observational Retrospective Multicenter Study.

Gabriel Mercadal-Orfila, Salvador Herrera-Pérez, Núria Piqué, Francesc Mateu-Amengual, Pedro Ventayol-Bosch, María Antonia Maestre-Fullana, Joaquín Ignacio Serrano-López de Las Hazas, Francisco Fernández-Cortés, Francesc Barceló-Sansó, Santiago Rios

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.

Gabriel Mercadal-OrfilaPharmacy Department, Hospital Mateu Orfila, Mahó, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7304-458X
Salvador Herrera-PérezFacultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Internacional de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0491-3718
Núria PiquéMicrobiology Section, Department of Biology, Healthcare and Environment, Faculty of Pharmacy and Food Sciences, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7308-030X
Francesc Mateu-AmengualHealthcare Industry Solutions at MongoDB - Digital Health & Innovation, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0009-0001-2281-8810
Pedro Ventayol-BoschPharmacy Department, Hospital Universitari Son Espases, Palma de Mallorca, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3167-3593
María Antonia Maestre-FullanaPharmacy Department, Hospital de Manacor, Manacor, Spain.ORCID 0009-0000-8843-4206
Joaquín Ignacio Serrano-López de Las HazasPharmacy Department, Hospital Universitari Son Llàtzer, Palma de Mallorca, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-0142-1205
Francisco Fernández-CortésPharmacy Department, Hospital Comarcal d'Inca, Inca, Spain.ORCID 0009-0001-3964-5928
Francesc Barceló-SansóPharmacy Department, Hospital Can Misses, Eivissa, Spain.ORCID 0009-0002-9338-0155
Santiago RiosDepartament de Genètica, Microbiologia i Estadística, Facultat de Biologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2492-9247
Universitat de Barcelona · ESFundación Hospital Manacor · ESHealth Solutions (Sweden) · SEHospital Can Misses · ESHospital Comarcal de Inca · ESHospital General Mateu Orfila · ESHospital Son Llatzer · ESHospital Universitario Son Espases · ESValencian International University · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-reported outcome and experience measures can play a critical role in providing patient-centered and value-based health care to a growing population of patients who are chronically ill. Value-based telemedicine platforms such as the Naveta initiative may facilitate the effective integration of these tools into health care systems.

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the response rate to electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) and electronic patient-reported experience measures (ePREMs) among patients participating in the Naveta telemedicine initiative and its correlations with sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, as well as the evolution of the response rates over time.

methodsBetween January 1, 2021, and June 30, 2023, a total of 53,364 ePREMs and ePROMs for 20 chronic conditions were administered through the Naveta-Phemium platform. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize continuous and categorical variables. Differences in response rates within each sociodemographic variable were analyzed using logistic regression models, with significance assessed via chi-square and post hoc Tukey tests. Two-way ANOVA was used to examine the interaction between time interval and disease type on response rate evolution.

resultsA total of 3372 patients with severe chronic diseases from 64 public hospitals in Spain participated in the Naveta health questionnaire project. The overall response rate to ePROMs and ePREMs during the first 2.5 years of the Naveta initiative was 46.12% (24,704/53,364), with a baseline rate of 53.33% (7198/13,496). Several sociodemographic factors correlated with lower response rates, including male gender, older age, lower education level, frequent alcohol use, being a student, and not being physically active. There were also significant variations in response rates among different types of chronic conditions (P<.001), with the highest rates being for respiratory (433/606, 71.5%), oncologic (200/319, 62.7%), digestive (2247/3601, 62.4%), and rheumatic diseases (7506/12,982, 57.82%) and the lowest being for HIV infection (7473/22,695, 32.93%). During the first 6 months of follow-up, the response rates decreased in all disease types, except in the case of the group of patients with oncologic disease, among whom the response rate increased up to 100% (6/6). Subsequently, the overall response rate approached baseline levels.

conclusionsRecognizing the influence of sociodemographic factors on response rates is critical to identifying barriers to participation in telemonitoring programs and ensuring inclusiveness in patient-centered health care practices. The observed decline in response rates at follow-up may be due to survey fatigue, highlighting the need for strategies to mitigate this effect. In addition, the variation in response rates across chronic conditions emphasizes the importance of tailoring telemonitoring approaches to specific patient populations.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresTelemedicineAdultAgedChronic DiseaseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSpainSurveys and Questionnaireschronic conditionseHealthpatient-reported experience measurespatient-reported outcome measuresquestionnairesresponse ratetelemedicine platformvalue-based care

Identifiers

PMID38545697
PMCPMC11245666
OpenAlexW4393239195

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.