Exploring the perspectives of primary care providers on use of the electronic Patient Reported Outcomes tool to support goal-oriented care: a qualitative study

Background Digital health technologies can support primary care delivery, but clinical uptake in primary care is limited. This study explores enablers and barriers experienced by primary care providers when adopting new digital health technologies, using the example of the electronic Patient Reported Outcome (ePRO) tool; a mobile application and web portal designed to support goal-oriented care. To better understand implementation drivers and barriers primary care providers’ usage behaviours are compared to their perspectives on ePRO utility and fit to support care for patients with complex care needs. Methods This qualitative sub-analysis was part of a larger trial evaluating the use of the ePRO tool in primary care. Qualitative interviews were conducted with providers at the midpoint (i.e. 4.5–6 months after ePRO implementation) and end-point (i.e. 9–12 months after ePRO implementation) of the trial. Interviews explored providers’ experiences and perceptions of integrating the tool within their clinical practice. Interview data were analyzed using a hybrid thematic analysis and guided by the Technology Acceptance Model. Data from thirteen providers from three distinct primary care sites were included in the presented study. Results Three core themes were identified: (1) Perceived usefulness : perceptions of the tool’s alignment with providers’ typical approach to care, impact and value and fit with existing workflows influenced providers’ intention to use the tool and usage behaviour; (2) Behavioural intention : providers had a high or low behavioural intention, and for some, it changed over time; and (3) Improving usage behaviour : enabling external factors and enhancing the tool’s perceived ease of use may improve usage behaviour. Conclusions Multiple refinements/iterations of the ePRO tool (e.g. enhancing the tool’s alignment with provider workflows and functions) may be needed to enhance providers’ usage behaviour, perceived usefulness and behavioural intention. Enabling external factors, such as organizational and IT support, are also necessary to increase providers’ usage behaviour. Lessons from this study advance knowledge of technology implementation in primary care. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identified NCT02917954. Registered September 2016, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT02917954

[1]  C. Dowrick,et al.  Peering through the barriers in GPs' explanations for declining to participate in research: the role of professional autonomy and the economy of time. , 2007, Family practice.

[2]  A. Sheikh,et al.  Does telehealthcare offer a patient-centred way forward for the community-based management of long-term respiratory disease? , 2009, Primary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group.

[3]  C J Peek,et al.  Primary care for patient complexity, not only disease. , 2009, Families, systems & health : the journal of collaborative family healthcare.

[4]  James H. Tiessen,et al.  The provider perspective: investigating the effect of the Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) mobile application and portal on primary care provider workflow , 2017, Primary Health Care Research & Development.

[5]  Toomas Timpka,et al.  A Systematic Review of the Technology Acceptance Model in Health Informatics , 2018, Applied Clinical Informatics.

[6]  M. Tinetti,et al.  Goal-oriented patient care--an alternative health outcomes paradigm. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  Michael J Barry,et al.  Defining Patient Complexity From the Primary Care Physician's Perspective , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[8]  Rai-Fu Chen,et al.  Critical factors influencing physicians’ intention to use computerized clinical practice guidelines: an integrative model of activity theory and the technology acceptance model , 2015, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[9]  Urs-Vito Albrecht,et al.  mHealth 2.0: Experiences, Possibilities, and Perspectives , 2014, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[10]  Alyce S Adams,et al.  Establishing visit priorities for complex patients: A summary of the literature and conceptual model to guide innovative interventions. , 2013, Healthcare.

[11]  Ross E. G. Upshur,et al.  Assessing the Implementation and Effectiveness of the Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Tool for Older Adults With Complex Care Needs: Mixed Methods Study , 2021, Journal of medical Internet research.

[12]  Pierre Frémont,et al.  Systematic Review of Factors Influencing the Adoption of Information and Communication Technologies by Healthcare Professionals , 2012, Journal of Medical Systems.

[13]  S. Whitelaw,et al.  Barriers to and facilitators of the uptake of digital health technology in cardiology: a systematic review , 2020 .

[14]  T. Cesuroğlu,et al.  Toward Integration of mHealth in Primary Care in the Netherlands: A Qualitative Analysis of Stakeholder Perspectives , 2020, Frontiers in Public Health.

[15]  Katrina M. Krause,et al.  Is There Time for Management of Patients With Chronic Diseases in Primary Care? , 2005, The Annals of Family Medicine.

[16]  E. Coiera.  Why system inertia makes health reform so difficult , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  M. Brommels,et al.  Digital tools as promoters for person-centered care practices in chronic care? Healthcare professionals’ experiences from rheumatology care , 2020, BMC Health Services Research.

[18]  T. Nesbitt,et al.  Increasing the Capacity of Primary Care Through Enabling Technology , 2017, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[19]  Jason H. Sharp.  Development, Extension, and Application: A Review of the Technology Acceptance Model , 2006 .

[20]  Carolyn Steele Gray,et al.  User-centred co-design with multiple user groups: The case of the electronic Patient Reported Outcome (ePRO) mobile application and portal , 2019 .

[21]  C. Steele Gray,et al.  mHealth Tools for the Self-Management of Patients With Multimorbidity in Primary Care Settings: Pilot Study to Explore User Experience , 2018, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[22]  Andrea Giovanni Nuzzolese,et al.  Adoption of Digital Technologies in Health Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review of Early Scientific Literature , 2020, Journal of Medical Internet Research.

[23]  B. McKinstry,et al.  eHealth Advances in Support of People with Complex Care Needs: Case Examples from Canada, Scotland and the US. , 2016, Healthcare quarterly.

[24]  Margaret Volante.  Qualitative research. , 2008, Nurse researcher.

[25]  J. Morse,et al.  Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research , 2002 .

[26]  P. Sainsbury,et al.  Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. , 2007, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[27]  M. Klein,et al.  Digital Health Behavior Change Technology: Bibliometric and Scoping Review of Two Decades of Research , 2019, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[28]  Jeffrey M. Ashburner,et al.  Characteristics of "complex" patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus according to their primary care physicians. , 2012, Archives of internal medicine.

[29]  Cheryl Cott,et al.  The Electronic Patient Reported Outcome Tool: Testing Usability and Feasibility of a Mobile App and Portal to Support Care for Patients With Complex Chronic Disease and Disability in Primary Care Settings , 2016, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[30]  Elizabeth Murray,et al.  Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews , 2015, Implementation Science.

[31]  D. Redelmeier,et al.  Building the patient-centered medical home in Ontario. , 2010, JAMA.

[32]  A. Hutchinson,et al.  How the Philosophies, Styles, and Methods of Family Medicine Affect the Research Agenda , 2004, The Annals of Family Medicine.

[33]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[34]  J. Fereday,et al.  Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development , 2006 .

[35]  유창조.  Naturalistic Inquiry , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[36]  C. Jagger,et al.  Forecasting the care needs of the older population in England over the next 20 years: estimates from the Population Ageing and Care Simulation (PACSim) modelling study , 2018, Lancet Public Health.

[37]  Janice M. Morse,et al.  Myth #93: Reliability and Validity Are Not Relevant to Qualitative Inquiry , 1999 .

[38]  E. Bayliss,et al.  Primary care providers’ experiences caring for complex patients in primary care: a qualitative study , 2016, BMC Family Practice.

[39]  Sheeba Rosewilliam,et al.  A systematic review and synthesis of the quantitative and qualitative evidence behind patient-centred goal setting in stroke rehabilitation , 2011, Clinical rehabilitation.

[40]  Lianne W L Simonse,et al.  Information and Communication Technology–Enabled Person-Centered Care for the “Big Five” Chronic Conditions: Scoping Review , 2015, Journal of Medical Internet Research.

[41]  C. Ivory,et al.  Social, Organizational, and Technological Factors Impacting Clinicians’ Adoption of Mobile Health Tools: Systematic Literature Review , 2019, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[42]  Inder Singh Devendra Kumar Punia,et al.  THE EVOLUTION OF TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL: A LITERATURE REVIEW , 2013 .

[43]  Heather J Ross,et al.  Mobile Phone-Based Telemonitoring for Heart Failure Management: A Randomized Controlled Trial , 2012, Journal of medical Internet research.

[44]  S. Thorne,et al.  Interpretive description: a noncategorical qualitative alternative for developing nursing knowledge. , 1997, Research in nursing & health.

[45]  J. Car,et al.  The Role of Health Technologies in Multicomponent Primary Care Interventions: Systematic Review , 2020, Journal of medical Internet research.

[46]  J. Mold.  Goal-Directed Health Care: Redefining Health and Health Care in the Era of Value-Based Care , 2017, Cureus.

[47]  Claudia Pagliari,et al.  Potential of electronic personal health records , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[48]  B. McKinstry,et al.  Exploring the relationship between the usability of a goal-oriented mobile health application and non-usage attrition in patients with multimorbidity: A blended data analysis approach , 2021, Digital health.

[49]  K. Wilber,et al.  Person‐Centered Care for Older Adults with Chronic Conditions and Functional Impairment: A Systematic Literature Review , 2016, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[50]  Steve M. Easterbrook,et al.  Barriers to adoption of information technology in healthcare , 2017, CASCON.

[51]  Ross Upshur,et al.  Supporting Goal-Oriented Primary Health Care for Seniors with Complex Care Needs Using Mobile Technology: Evaluation and Implementation of the Health System Performance Research Network, Bridgepoint Electronic Patient Reported Outcome Tool , 2016, JMIR research protocols.

[52]  D. Reuben,et al.  Putting Goal‐Oriented Patient Care Into Practice , 2019, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[53]  Heba Tallah Mohammed,et al.  Exploring the use and challenges of implementing virtual visits during COVID-19 in primary care and lessons for sustained use , 2021, PloS one.

[54]  Andrina Granic,et al.  Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013 , 2014, Universal Access in the Information Society.

[55]  James Shaw,et al.  Beyond “implementation”: digital health innovation and service design , 2018, npj Digital Medicine.

[56]  C. May,et al.  Health care professionals’ views towards self-management and self-management education for people with type 2 diabetes , 2019, BMJ Open.

[57]  S. Thorne,et al.  The Analytic Challenge in Interpretive Description , 2004 .

[58]  A. Adler,et al.  Impact of a Global Pandemic on Health Technology Assessment , 2020, Applied Health Economics and Health Policy.

[59]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[60]  G. Baker,et al.  Will the “New” Become the “Normal”? Exploring Sustainability of Rapid Health System Transformations , 2021, Organising Care in a Time of Covid-19.

[61]  Naihua Duan,et al.  Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research , 2015, Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research.