背景:患者和工作人员的经验是评估远程患者监护(RPM)干预措施时要考虑的重要因素。然而,目前还没有全面概述可用的RPM患者和工作人员的经验测量方法和工具。
目的:这篇综述旨在获得一套全面的经验构造和当代RPM研究中使用的相应测量仪器,并提出一套初步的指南,以改善该领域的方法学标准化。
方法:全文文件报告患者或工作人员在RPM干预措施中的经验测量实例,用英语写的,并在2011年1月1日之后发布,被认为符合资格。通过“RPM干预,“我们提到了干预措施,包括用于临床决策的基于传感器的患者监测;因此,报告其他干预措施的论文被排除在外。描述初级保健干预措施的论文,涉及18岁以下的参与者,或侧重于态度或技术,而不是具体的干预措施也被排除在外。我们搜索了2个电子数据库,Medline(PubMed)和EMBASE,2021年2月12日我们通过对应分析对获得的语料库进行了探索和结构化,多元统计技术。
结果:总计,包含158篇论文,涵盖了各个领域的RPM干预。从这些研究中,我们在RPM中报告了546个经验测量实例,涵盖使用160种独特的经验测量仪器来测量120种独特的经验结构。我们发现,在过去的十年中,研究领域有了相当大的增长,它受到相对缺乏对员工经验的关注的影响,收集的经验措施的总体语料库可以分为4个主要类别(服务系统相关,护理相关,使用和依从性相关,和健康结果相关)。根据收集到的调查结果,我们向RPM患者和工作人员经验评估人员提供了一组6个可操作的建议,在衡量什么和如何衡量方面。总的来说,我们建议RPM研究人员和从业人员将经验测量作为集成的一部分,用于连续RPM评估的跨学科数据策略。
结论:目前,在用于测量RPM患者和工作人员经验的方法中缺乏共识和标准化,导致我们对RPM干预措施影响的理解存在严重的知识差距。本审查通过提供结构化、全面概述当代患者和工作人员的经验措施,以及一套提高该领域研究质量和标准化的实用指南。
BACKGROUND: Patient and staff experience is a vital factor to consider in the evaluation of remote patient monitoring (RPM) interventions. However, no comprehensive overview of available RPM patient and staff experience-measuring methods and tools exists.
OBJECTIVE: This review aimed at obtaining a comprehensive set of experience constructs and corresponding measuring instruments used in contemporary RPM research and at proposing an initial set of guidelines for improving methodological standardization in this domain.
METHODS: Full-text papers reporting on instances of patient or staff experience measuring in RPM interventions, written in English, and published after January 1, 2011, were considered for eligibility. By \"RPM interventions,\" we referred to interventions including sensor-based patient monitoring used for clinical decision-making; papers reporting on other kinds of interventions were therefore excluded. Papers describing primary care interventions, involving participants under 18 years of age, or focusing on attitudes or technologies rather than specific interventions were also excluded. We searched 2 electronic databases, Medline (PubMed) and EMBASE, on February 12, 2021.We explored and structured the obtained corpus of data through correspondence analysis, a multivariate statistical technique.
RESULTS: In total, 158 papers were included, covering RPM interventions in a variety of domains. From these studies, we reported 546 experience-measuring instances in RPM, covering the use of 160 unique experience-measuring instruments to measure 120 unique experience constructs. We found that the research landscape has seen a sizeable growth in the past decade, that it is affected by a relative lack of focus on the experience of staff, and that the overall corpus of collected experience measures can be organized in 4 main categories (service system related, care related, usage and adherence related, and health outcome related). In the light of the collected findings, we provided a set of 6 actionable recommendations to RPM patient and staff experience evaluators, in terms of both what to measure and how to measure it. Overall, we suggested that RPM researchers and practitioners include experience measuring as part of integrated, interdisciplinary data strategies for continuous RPM evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS: At present, there is a lack of consensus and standardization in the methods used to measure patient and staff experience in RPM, leading to a critical knowledge gap in our understanding of the impact of RPM interventions. This review offers targeted support for RPM experience evaluators by providing a structured, comprehensive overview of contemporary patient and staff experience measures and a set of practical guidelines for improving research quality and standardization in this domain.