Ziel der Studie: Die langfristige Nutzung telemedizinischer Angebote hängt nicht nur von deren Wirksamkeit, sondern auch von der Akzeptanz und Zufriedenheit der Patienten ab. Für eine telemedizinische Bewegungstherapie für Patienten nach Implantation einer Knie- oder Hüft-Totalendoprothese und erfolgter Anschlussrehabilitation wurde die Wirksamkeit bereits in einer randomisiert kontrollierten Studie untersucht. Dieser Beitrag fokussiert die Akzeptanz und das Nutzungsverhalten der Patienten hinsichtlich des eingesetzten telerehabilitativen Systems.
Methodik: Zur Erfassung der Technikakzeptanz wurden 48 Patienten (53±7 Jahre; 26 Frauen; 35 Hüft-/13 Knie-TEP) im Anschluss an eine dreimonatige telemedizinische Bewegungstherapie mittels des Telehealth Usability Questionnaire befragt. Der Fragebogen besteht aus 21 Items (siebenstufige Likert-Skala) in sechs Skalen (z. B. Nützlichkeit, Qualität der Interaktionen, Verlässlichkeit). In einer zusätzlichen Skala wurden systemspezifische Fragen zusammengefasst. Die Ergebnisse wurden als Skalenprozent (100 ≙ vollkommene Zustimmung) dargestellt. Das Nutzungsverhalten wurde anhand systemgenerierter Prozessdaten zum Training sowie zu integrierten Sprach-/Textnachrichten untersucht.
Ergebnisse: Die TUQ-Skalen „Nützlichkeit“ (Mdn 95,2) sowie „Benutzerfreundlichkeit und Erlernbarkeit“ (Mdn 92,9) wurden am höchsten bewertet, während die „Verlässlichkeit“ (Mdn 57,1) und „Qualität der Interaktionen“ (Mdn 71,4) die geringsten Ausprägungen zeigten. Die systemspezifische Skala wurde im oberen Quartil eingeordnet (Mdn 85,7).
In der ersten Woche führten 39 Patienten (81%), in der zweiten 45 Patienten (94%) mindestens eine Trainingsübung mit dem System durch. Der Anteil aktiver Patienten (≥1 Übung/Woche) reduzierte sich im weiteren Verlauf auf 75% (n=36) in der 7. Woche und 48% (n=23) in der 12. Woche. Die systemeigenen Kommunikationsmöglichkeiten wurden nach Therapiestart zunächst häufig genutzt: in der ersten Woche sendeten 42 Patienten (88%) Nachrichten, 47 Patienten (98%) erhielten Nachrichten von ihrem Therapeuten. In der 7. Woche sendeten/erhielten 9 (19%) bzw. 13 (27%) Patienten Nachrichten über das System.
Schlussfolgerung: Die Patienten nahmen die telemedizinische Bewegungstherapie überwiegend als nützlich und benutzerfreundlich wahr und schienen im Wesentlichen mit dem System zufrieden, das sich damit für den kurzfristigen Einsatz von 6 bis 8 Wochen im Anschluss an eine Anschlussrehabilitation als gut geeignet zeigte.
In recent years digital technologies have become a major means for providing health-related services and this trend was strongly reinforced by the current Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As it is well-known that regular physical activity has positive effects on individual physical and mental health and thus is an important prerequisite for healthy aging, digital technologies are also increasingly used to promote unstructured and structured forms of physical activity. However, in the course of this development, several terms (e.g., Digital Health, Electronic Health, Mobile Health, Telehealth, Telemedicine, and Telerehabilitation) have been introduced to refer to the application of digital technologies to provide health-related services such as physical interventions. Unfortunately, the above-mentioned terms are often used in several different ways, but also relatively interchangeably. Given that ambiguous terminology is a major source of difficulty in scientific communication which can impede the progress of theoretical and empirical research, this article aims to make the reader aware of the subtle differences between the relevant terms which are applied at the intersection of physical activity and Digital Health and to provide state-of-art definitions for them.
In recent years digital technologies have become a major means for providing health-related services and this trend was strongly reinforced by the current Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As it is well-known that regular physical activity has positive effects on individual physical and mental health and thus is an important prerequisite for healthy aging, digital technologies are also increasingly used to promote unstructured and structured forms of physical activity. However, in the course of this development, several terms (e.g., Digital Health, Electronic Health, Mobile Health, Telehealth, Telemedicine, and Telerehabilitation) have been introduced to refer to the application of digital technologies to provide health-related services such as physical interventions. Unfortunately, the above-mentioned terms are often used in several different ways, but also relatively interchangeably. Given that ambiguous terminology is a major source of difficulty in scientific communication which can impede the progress of theoretical and empirical research, this article aims to make the reader aware of the subtle differences between the relevant terms which are applied at the intersection of physical activity and Digital Health and to provide state-of-art definitions for them.
Background: Evidence that home telemonitoring for patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) offers clinical benefit over usual care is controversial as is evidence of a health economic advantage.
Methods: Between January 2010 and June 2013, patients with a confirmed diagnosis of CHF were enrolled and randomly assigned to 2 study groups comprising usual care with and without an interactive bi-directional remote monitoring system (Motiva (R)). The primary endpoint in CardioBBEAT is the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) established by the groups' difference in total cost and in the combined clinical endpoint "days alive and not in hospital nor inpatient care per potential days in study" within the follow-up of 12 months.
Results: A total of 621 predominantly male patients were enrolled, whereof 302 patients were assigned to the intervention group and 319 to the control group. Ischemic cardiomyopathy was the leading cause of heart failure. Despite randomization, subjects of the control group were more often in NYHA functional class III-IV, and exhibited peripheral edema and renal dysfunction more often. Additionally, the control and intervention groups differed in heart rhythm disorders. No differences existed regarding risk factor profile, comorbidities, echocardiographic parameters, especially left ventricular and diastolic diameter and ejection fraction, as well as functional test results, medication and quality of life. While the observed baseline differences may well be a play of chance, they are of clinical relevance. Therefore, the statistical analysis plan was extended to include adjusted analyses with respect to the baseline imbalances.
Conclusions: CardioBBEAT provides prospective outcome data on both, clinical and health economic impact of home telemonitoring in CHF. The study differs by the use of a high evidence level randomized controlled trial (RCT) design along with actual cost data obtained from health insurance companies. Its results are conducive to informed political and economic decision-making with regard to home telemonitoring solutions as an option for health care. Overall, it contributes to developing advanced health economic evaluation instruments to be deployed within the specific context of the German Health Care System.