Barriers and Drivers of Health Information Technology Use for the Elderly, Chronically Ill, and Underserved
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Evidence Report/Technology Assessment Number 175 Barriers and Drivers of Health Information Technology Use for the Elderly, Chronically Ill, and Underserved Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 540 Gaither Road Rockville, MD 20850 www.ahrq.gov Contract No. 290-02-0024 Prepared by: Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, Portland, Oregon Investigators Holly Jimison, Ph.D. Principal Investigator Paul Gorman, M.D. Susan Woods, M.D. Peggy Nygren, M.A. Miranda Walker, M.A. Susan Norris, M.D., M.P.H., M.Sc. William Hersh, M.D. AHRQ Publication No. 09-E004 November 2008 This report is based on research conducted by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-02-0024). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its content, and do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. No statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The information in this report is intended to help clinicians, employers, policymakers, and others make informed decisions about the provision of health care services. This report is intended as a reference and not as a substitute for clinical judgment. This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for the development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied. This document is in the public domain and may be used and reprinted without permission except those copyrighted materials noted for which further reproduction is prohibited without the specific permission of copyright holders. Suggested Citation: Jimison H, Gorman P, Woods S, Nygren P, Walker M, Norris S, Hersh W. Barriers and Drivers of Health Information Technology Use for the Elderly, Chronically Ill, and Underserved. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 175 (Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0024). AHRQ Publication No. 09-E004. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. November 2008. No investigators have any affilications or financial involvement (e.g., employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties) that conflict with material presented in this report. ii Preface The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), through its Evidence-Based Practice Centers (EPCs), sponsors the development of evidence reports and technology assessments to assist public- and private-sector organizations in their efforts to improve the quality of health care in the United States. The reports and assessments provide organizations with comprehensive, science-based information on common, costly medical conditions and new health care technologies. The EPCs systematically review the relevant scientific literature on topics assigned to them by AHRQ and conduct additional analyses when appropriate prior to developing their reports and assessments. To bring the broadest range of experts into the development of evidence reports and health technology assessments, AHRQ encourages the EPCs to form partnerships and enter into collaborations with other medical and research organizations. The EPCs work with these partner organizations to ensure that the evidence reports and technology assessments they produce will become building blocks for health care quality improvement projects throughout the Nation. The reports undergo peer review prior to their release. AHRQ expects that the EPC evidence reports and technology assessments will inform individual health plans, providers, and purchasers as well as the health care system as a whole by providing important information to help improve health care quality. We welcome comments on this evidence report. They may be sent by mail to the Task Order Officer named below at: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850, or by e-mail to [email protected]. Carolyn M. Clancy, M.D. Jean Slutsky, P.A., M.S.P.H. Director Director, Center for Outcomes and Evidence Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Beth A. Collins Sharp, R.N., Ph.D. Director, EPC Program Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Teresa Zayas Cabán, Ph.D. Task Order Officer Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality iii Acknowledgments The research team would like to express our regard and appreciation for the efforts of Andrew Hamilton, MLS, for database searching; Kimberly Peterson, M.S., and Lakshmi Harinath, M.D., MPH, for data abstraction assistance; Roger Chou, M.D., for oversight and guidance; Janna Kimel and Alia Broman for program support; and everyone else who shared support and ideas throughout the development of this report. We would also like to offer special thanks to Teresa Zayas Cabán, Ph.D., of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for her contributions as our Task Order Officer. iv Structured Abstract Objectives: We reviewed the evidence on the barriers and drivers to the use of interactive consumer health information technology (IT) by specific populations, namely the elderly, those with chronic conditions or disabilities, and the underserved. Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE®, CINHAHL®, PsycINFO®, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Database of Systematic Reviews, ERIC, and the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) AgeLine® databases. We focused on literature 1990 to present. Methods: We included studies of all designs that described the direct use of interactive consumer health IT by at least one of the populations of interest. We then assessed the quality and abstracted and summarized data from these studies with regard to the level of use, the usefulness and usability, the barriers and drivers of use, and the effectiveness of the interactive consumer health IT applications. Results: We identified and reviewed 563 full-text articles and included 129 articles for abstraction. Few of the studies were specifically designed to compare the elderly, chronically ill, or underserved with the general population. We did find that several types of interactive consumer health IT were usable and effective in multiple settings and with all of our populations of interest. Of the studies that reported the impact of interactive consumer health IT on health outcomes, a consistent finding of our review was that these systems tended to have a positive effect when they provided a complete feedback loop that included (a) monitoring of current patient status, (b) interpretation of this data in light of established, often individualized, treatment goals, (c) adjustment of the management plan as needed, (d) communication back to the patient with tailored recommendations or advice, and (e) repetition of this cycle at appropriate intervals. Systems that provided only one or a subset of these functions were less consistently effective. The barriers and drivers to use were most often reported as secondary outcomes. Many studies were hampered by usability problems and unreliable technology, primarily due to the research being performed on early stage system prototypes. However, the most common factor influencing the successful use of the interactive technology by these specific populations was that the consumers’ perceived a benefit from using the system. Convenience was an important factor. It was critical that data entry not be cumbersome and that the intervention fit into the user’s daily routine. Usage was more successful if the intervention could be delivered on technology consumers used every day for other purposes. Finally, rapid and frequent interactions from a clinician improved use and user satisfaction. Conclusions: The systems described in the studies we examined depended on the active engagement of consumers and patients and the involvement of health professionals, supported by the specific technology interventions. Questions remain as to (a) the optimal frequency of use of the system by the patient, which is likely to be condition-specific; (b) the optimal frequency of use or degree of involvement by health professionals; and (c) whether the success depends on repeated modification of the patient’s treatment regimen or simply ongoing assistance with applying a static treatment plan. However, it is clear that the consumer’s perception of benefit, v convenience, and integration into daily activities will serve to facilitate the successful use of the interactive technologies for the elderly, chronically ill, and underserved. vi Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................1 Evidence Report.................................................................................................................7 Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................9 1.a. Goal of the Report ..................................................................................................9 1.b. Background ............................................................................................................9 1.c. Burdens of Illness, Conditions, and the