Background: People with a low socioeconomic position (SEP) are less likely to benefit from eHealth interventions, exacerbating social health inequalities. Professionals developing eHealth... Show moreBackground: People with a low socioeconomic position (SEP) are less likely to benefit from eHealth interventions, exacerbating social health inequalities. Professionals developing eHealth interventions for this group face numerous challenges. A comprehensive guide to support these professionals in their work could mitigate these inequalities.Objective: We aimed to develop a web-based guide to support professionals in the development, adaptation, evaluation, and implementation of eHealth interventions for people with a low SEP.Methods: This study consisted of 2 phases. The first phase involved a secondary analysis of 2 previous qualitative and quantitative studies. In this phase, we synthesized insights from the previous studies to develop the guide’s content and information structure. In the second phase, we used a participatory design process. This process included iterative development and evaluation of the guide’s design with 11 professionals who had experience with both eHealth and the target group. We used test versions (prototypes) and think-aloud testing combined with semistructured interviews and a questionnaire to identify design requirements and develop and adapt the guide accordingly.Results: The secondary analysis resulted in a framework of recommendations for developing the guide, which was categorized under 5 themes: development, reach, adherence, evaluation, and implementation. The participatory design process resulted in 16 requirements on system, content, and service aspects for the design of the guide. For the system category, the guide was required to have an open navigation strategy leading to more specific information and short pages with visual elements. Content requirements included providing comprehensible information, scientific evidence, a user perspective, information on practical applications, and a personal and informal tone of voice. Service requirements involved improving suitability for different professionals, ensuring long-term viability, and a focus on implementation. Based on these requirements, we developed the final version of “the inclusive eHealth guide.”Conclusions: The inclusive eHealth guide provides a practical, user-centric tool for professionals aiming to develop, adapt, evaluate, and implement eHealth interventions for people with a low SEP, with the aim of reducing health disparities in this population. Future research should investigate its suitability for different end-user goals, its external validity, its applicability in specific contexts, and its real-world impact on social health inequality. Show less
Wal, D. van de; Doorn, B. van; Hollander, D. den; Desar, I.M.E.; Gelderblom, H.; Oosten, A.W.; ... ; Husson, O. 2023
BackgroundThere are two main coping styles regarding information seeking under medical threat; monitoring (information-seeking) and blunting (information-avoiding). The aim of this study is to (1)... Show moreBackgroundThere are two main coping styles regarding information seeking under medical threat; monitoring (information-seeking) and blunting (information-avoiding). The aim of this study is to (1) determine factors associated with a monitoring or blunting coping style in gastro-intestinal stromal tumour (GIST) patients and (2) investigate its association with psychological distress, cancer-related concerns, health-related quality of life and satisfaction with healthcare.MethodsIn a cross-sectional study, Dutch GIST patients completed the shortened version of the Threatening Medical Situations Inventory to determine their coping style, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Cancer Worry Scale, EORTC QLQ-C30 and part of the EORTC QLQ-INFO25.ResultsA total of 307 patients were classified as blunters (n = 175, 57%) or monitors (n = 132, 43%). Coping style was not associated with tumour or treatment variables, but being a female (OR 2.5; 95%CI 1.5–4.1; p= <.001) and higher educated (OR 5.5; 95%CI 2.5–11.9, p= <.001) were associated with higher odds of being a monitor. Monitors scored significantly lower on emotional functioning (mean = 86.8 vs mean = 90.9, p=.044), which is considered a trivial difference, more often experienced severe fear of cancer recurrence or progression (53.0% vs 37.7%, p=.007), and had more concerns about dying from GIST in the future (60.6% vs 47.4%, p=.025). Compared to blunters, monitors were less satisfied with the received healthcare and information, and would have liked to receive more information.ConclusionGIST patients with a monitoring coping style experience a higher emotional burden. Additionally, monitors exhibit a greater need for information. Although this need for information could potentially result in fears and concerns, recognising it may also create an opening for tailored communication and information. Show less
Introduction: Suboptimal self-management of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in asthma patients is frequently observed in clinical practice and associated with poor asthma control. Driving factors for... Show moreIntroduction: Suboptimal self-management of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in asthma patients is frequently observed in clinical practice and associated with poor asthma control. Driving factors for suboptimal self-management are complex and consist of a range of behavioral barriers (cognitive, affective and practical) with a considerable inter-individual variability. Identification of individual barriers facilitates the use of corresponding behavior change techniques and tailored care to improve asthma treatment outcomes.Objective: This study describes the development and validation of the 'Respiratory Adherence Care Enhancer' (RACE) questionnaire to identify individual barriers to self-management of ICS therapy in asthma patients.Methods: The development included: 1) an inventory of self-management barriers based on a literature review, 2) expert assessment on relevance and completeness of this set, linking these barriers to behavioral domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and 3) the formulation of corresponding questions assessing each of the barriers. A cross-sectional study was performed for validation. Primary care asthma patients were invited to fill out the RACE-questionnaire prior to a semi-structured telephonic interview as golden standard. Barriers detected from the questionnaire were compared to those mentioned in the interview.Results: The developed questionnaire is made up of 6 TDF-domains, covering 10 self-management barriers with 23 questions. For the validation 64 patients completed the questionnaire, of whom 61 patients were interviewed. Cronbach's alpha for the consistency of questions within the barriers ranged from 0.58 to 0.90. Optimal cut-off values for the presence of barriers were determined at a specificity between 67 and 92% with a sensitivity between 41 and 83%. Significant Areas Under the Receiver Operating Curves values were observed for 9 barriers with values between 0.69 and 0.86 (p-value <0.05), except for 'Knowledge of ICS medication' with an insignificant value of 0.53.Conclusion: The RACE-questionnaire yields adequate psychometric characteristics to identify individual barriers to self-management of ICS therapy in asthma patients, facilitating tailored care. Show less
