Availability of researcher-led eHealth tools for pain assessment and management: barriers, facilitators, costs, and design
Availability of researcher-led eHealth tools for pain assessment and management: barriers, facilitators, costs, and design
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/pr9.0000000000000686
复制
发表时间：
2018-09-01
期刊：
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
Jordan, Isabel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Higgins, Kristen S.;Tutelman, Perri R.;Jordan, Isabel
导论：许多用于疼痛评估和管理的电子健康工具已经开发出来，并在心理测量特性、功效和有效性方面得到了有希望的结果。尽管在开发和评估这些工具上花费了大量资源，目的是增加获得医疗服务的机会，但目前的证据表明，最终用户无法获得这些工具，从而降低了它们的影响并造成潜在的研究浪费。方法：本研究由两个部分组成：(1)对过去10年发表的用于儿科疼痛评估和/或管理的eHealth工具进行系统回顾；(2)由已识别工具的作者完成的在线调查，调查内容包括工具的可用性、可获得性的感知障碍或促进因素、使用的资助资金，以及设计过程中以用户为中心的验证措施（UCD-11）。结果：90篇文章（0.86%的引用筛选）描述53种工具符合纳入标准。完成了26个调查回复（49.06%），其中13个（50.00%）描述了可用的工具。通常认可的工具可用性促进因素包括研究人员对目标人群和研究社区的工具利益的信念；障碍包括缺乏基础设施和时间。每个不可用工具的平均成本为314,425.31美元（总计3,144,253.06美元，n = 10）。可用工具的作者更有可能遵循以用户为中心的设计原则，并报告了更高的总资金。结论：学术和资助结构的系统性变化可以更好地支持电子卫生工具的可用性，并可能减少潜在的研究浪费。以用户为中心的设计和实施科学方法可以提高电子健康工具的可用性，应该在未来的研究中进一步探索。
Introduction: Numerous eHealth tools for pain assessment and management have been developed and evaluated with promising results regarding psychometric properties, efficacy, and effectiveness. Although considerable resources are spent on developing and evaluating these tools with the aim of increasing access to care, current evidence suggests they are not made available to end users, reducing their impact and creating potential research waste. Methods: This study consisted of 2 components: (1) a systematic review of eHealth tools for pediatric pain assessment and/or management published in the past 10 years, and (2) an online survey, completed by the authors of identified tools, of tool availability, perceived barriers or facilitators to availability, grant funding used, and a validated measure of user-centeredness of the design process (UCD-11). Results: Ninety articles (0.86% of citations screened) describing 53 tools met inclusion criteria. Twenty-six survey responses were completed (49.06%), 13 of which (50.00%) described available tools. Commonly endorsed facilitators of tool availability included researchers' beliefs in tool benefits to the target population and research community; barriers included lack of infrastructure and time. The average cost of each unavailable tool was $314,425.31 USD ($3,144,253.06 USD total, n = 10). Authors of available tools were more likely to have followed user-centered design principles and reported higher total funding. Conclusion: Systemic changes to academic and funding structures could better support eHealth tool availability and may reduce potential for research waste. User-centered design and implementation science methods could improve the availability of eHealth tools and should be further explored in future studies.