Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a persistent inflammatory condition impacting the brain and spinal cord, affecting globally approximately 2.8 million individuals. Effective self-management... Show moreBackground: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a persistent inflammatory condition impacting the brain and spinal cord, affecting globally approximately 2.8 million individuals. Effective self-management plays a crucial role in the treatment of chronic diseases, including MS, significantly influencing health outcomes. A personal health record (PHR) is a promising tool to support self-management, potentially empowering patients and enhancing their engagement in treatment and health. Despite these promising aspects, challenges in implementation persist and PHRs are still a relatively new concept undergoing rapid development.Objective: This study aimed to assess the feasibility and usability of the PHR. Secondary objectives included evaluating implementation determinants, and exploring preliminary effects on quality of care for both patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs), self-management, self-efficacy for patients, job satisfaction, efficiency, and demand for HCPs, and preliminary effects on costs and health-related quality of life.Methods: This study had a mixed-methods design. Quantitative data of patients (n = 80) and HCPs (n = 12) were collected via self-reported questionnaires at baseline (T0), after one year (T1), and after two years (T2). One focus group interview was conducted at T2 with patients (n = 7), and another one with HCPs (n = 4), to get a more in-depth understanding of the feasibility and usability of the PHR via the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology framework, and to further explore the secondary objectives in-depth.Results: Most patients never logged in during the first year and logged in a couple of times per year during the second year, averaging around 15 min per log-in session. The HCPs mainly logged in a couple of times per year over the two years with an average use of six minutes per session. Patient usability and satisfaction scores were below average and moderate, respectively: with SUS-scores of 59.9 (SD = 14.2, n = 33) at T1 and 59.0 (SD = 16.3, n = 37) at T2, and CSQ-8 scores of 21.4 (SD = 5.0, n = 34) at T1, and 22.1 (SD = 5.0, n = 39) at T2. HCPs had similar usability and satisfaction scores. Multiple facilitators and barriers were identified by both patients and HCPs, such as (in)sufficient knowledge of how to use the PHR, lack of staff capacity and ICT obstacles. No significant differences were found in the preliminary effects. Qualitative data showed, among others, that both patients and HCPs saw the benefit of the PHR in terms of performance expectancy, by gaining more insight into health and health data, but challenges remained regarding effort expectancy, such as log-in issues and experiencing difficulties with information retrieval.Conclusion: The feasibility and usability were considered moderate by patients and HCPs; however, potential regarding the performance of the PHR was observed. Implementation challenges, such as the complexity of usage, lowered the adoption of the PHR. The evolving nature of PHRs requires ongoing evaluation and adaptation to optimize their potential benefits. Utilizing a participatory design approach and a dedicated implementation team could help in achieving this optimization, ultimately enhancing their adoption. Show less
