Estimating Patient Empowerment and Nurses’ Use of Digital Strategies: eSurvey Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Initial Definition of the Survey Items by a Panel of Experts
2.2. Testing the Survey with a Group of Health Professionals
2.3. Structure and Details of the Survey
2.4. Launch of the Large-Scale Survey
2.5. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Definition of Empowerment: Which Adjectives Do Nurses Associate with an Empowered Patient?
3.2. Empowerment Measurement: Which Method Do Nurses Use to Assess Empowerment?
3.3. Profiling the Patients: Which Patients Ask for More Information?
3.4. Frequency: How Often Do Patients Ask for More Information?
3.5. Communication Channels: How Do Nurses Provide the Extra Info Demanded by the Patient?
4. Discussion
4.1. Nurses’ Assessment of the Patient Empowerment Level
4.2. Empowered Patient Profile and Demand for Information
4.3. Perception of eHealth Literacy of Older People in Younger Health Nurses
4.4. Strategies to Increase Patients’ eHealth Literacy
5. Limitations
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Item Category | Checklist Item | Description |
---|---|---|
Design | Describe survey design | The target population was nurses of any age who were working with patients at that time. |
IRB (Institutional Review Board) approval and informed consent process | IRB approval | Ethics approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain (P4_25_07_18). |
Informed consent | The informed consent for the present survey was obtained from everyone who agreed to complete a survey, and participants reported on the welcome page that all responses were confidential and anonymous, and that reporting would only be done at the aggregate level. Consent was indicated when respondents by clicking the “Accept” button on this page. | |
Data protection | Google survey software was used to ensure data protection. No personal information was linked to the survey results in any way; in fact, no emails were collected from the participants. | |
Development and pre-testing | Development and testing | A questionnaire with initially 26 queries, mostly open-ended, was submitted for review, analysis and discussion by a panel of experts composed of thirteen experts. The questionnaire was reduced to 24 items that were subsequently tested on a population of 100 doctors and nurses. After this analysis, it was decided to eliminate two items, resulting in a 21-item survey. |
Recruitment process and description of the sample having access to the questionnaire | Open survey versus closed survey | This was an open survey |
Contact mode | The initial contact with the participants was made through the internet, using social networks such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and WhatsApp. | |
Advertising the survey | The survey was disseminated on social networks thanks to various profiles of nurses with a large number of followers. It was also reached out to professional groups of nurses through WhatsApp. | |
Survey administration | Web/E-mail | The survey was sent via a link through the internet. The responses were automatically collected by Google Forms. |
Context | The survey was sent via a link through social networks. This link was accompanied by a short explanatory text on the objective of the investigation. The page where the survey is inserted does not include any additional information besides the content of the questions. | |
Mandatory/voluntary | Voluntary | |
Incentives | Respondents got nothing in return for their answers. | |
Time/Date | Responses were collected between 3 to 16 December 2020. | |
Randomization of items or questionnaires | No randomisation of items was used. | |
Adaptive questioning | Not used in this survey | |
Number of Items | 22 | |
Number of screens (pages) | 4 | |
Completeness check | All the questions in the questionnaire were mandatory, therefore, it was not possible to finish sending without having answered everything. | |
Review step | The survey has buttons to go forward or back in order to review the answers and to be able to modify them before sending the questionnaire. | |
Response rates | Unique site visitor | Not used in this survey |
View rate (Ratio of unique survey visitors/unique site visitors) | Not applicable | |
Participation rate | 850 people completed the survey after accepting the initial consent screen. | |
Completion rate | Only two people dropped out of the questionnaire before finalizing it and after initially accepting it. | |
Preventing multiple entries from the same individual | Cookies used | Not used in this survey |
IP check | Not used in this survey | |
Log file analysis | Not used in this survey | |
Registration | Not used in this survey | |
Analysis | Handling of incomplete questionnaires | Questionnaires not completely completed were eliminated. This only happened in two cases. |
Questionnaires submitted with an atypical timestamp | Not used in this survey | |
Statistical correction | Not applicable |
(a) Answers to the question “What indicators do you use to measure the empowerment of your patients? (several options can be ticked)”. | ||
Indicator | Yes | % |
Attitude towards changes or new information Ability to take decisions | 252 | 29.7 |
Ability to take decisions | 206 | 24.3 |
Attitude towards changes or new information | 136 | 16 |
Attitude towards changes or new information Ability to take decisions, Educational level | 108 | 12.7 |
None | 76 | 8.9 |
Ability to take decisions, Educational level | 20 | 2.4 |
Attitude towards changes or new information Ability to take decisions, Others | 11 | 1.3 |
Attitude towards changes or new information Educational level | 11 | 1.3 |
Others | 28 | 3.3 |
(b) Assuming separate variables, for each method, how many people use it: | ||
How do nurses estimate the empowerment of their patients? | Do they use any method? | % |
None | 78/848 | 9.2 |
Educational level | 155/848 | 18.3 |
Attitude towards changes or new information | 525/848 | 61.9 |
Ability to take decisions | 609/848 | 71.8 |
Others | 30/848 | 3.54 |
References
- Bravo, P.; Edwards, A.; Barr, P.J.; Scholl, I.; Elwyn, G.; McAllister, M. Conceptualising patient empowerment: A mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2015, 15, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aminof, K.; Wilma, B.; Crepaz-Keay, D.; Daumerie, N.; Finkelstein, C.; Gauci, D.; Geoghegan, P.; Gonzi, C.; Horka, H.; Klein, J. Empoderamiento del Usuario de Salud Mental–Declaración de la Oficina Regional para Europa de la OMS. 2010. Available online: https://aen.es/wp-content/uploads/docs/Empoderamientodelusuariodesaludmental.pdf (accessed on 17 September 2021).
- Barr, P.J.; Scholl, I.; Bravo, P.; Faber, M.J.; Elwyn, G.; McAllister, M. Assessment of Patient Empowerment—A Systematic Review of Measures. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0126553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eskildsen, N.B.; Joergensen, C.R.; Thomsen, T.G.; Ross, L.; Dietz, S.M.; Groenvold, M.; Johnsen, A.T. Patient empowerment: A systematic review of questionnaires measuring empowerment in cancer patients. Acta Oncol. 2017, 56, 156–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Risling, T.; Martinez, J.; Young, J.; Thorp-Froslie, N. Evaluating Patient Empowerment in Association with eHealth Technology: Scoping Review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2017, 19, e329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chong, Y.Y.; Cheng, H.Y.; Chan, H.Y.L.; Chien, W.T.; Wong, S.Y.S. COVID-19 pandemic, infodemic and the role of eHealth literacy. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2020, 108, 103644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brørs, G.; Norman, C.D.; Norekvål, T.M. Accelerated importance of eHealth literacy in the COVID-19 outbreak and beyond. Eur. J. Cardiovasc. Nurs. 2020, 19, 458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navarro, O.; Escrivá, M.; Faubel, R.; Traver, V. Empowering patients living with chronic conditions using video as an educational tool: Scoping review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2021, 23, e26427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marina Ocaña, J.; Feliz Murias, T.; Marina Ocaña, J.; Feliz Murias, T. Percepciones en la búsqueda de información y educación para la salud en entornos virtuales en español. Rev. Esp. Salud Publica 2018, 92, e201808022. [Google Scholar]
- Marar, S.D.; Al-Madaney, M.M.; Almousawi, F.H. Health information on social media. Saudi Med. J. 2019, 40, 1294–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reifegerste, D.; Bachl, M.; Baumann, E. Surrogate health information seeking in Europe: Influence of source type and social network variables. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2017, 103, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parmeshwar, N.; Reid, C.M.; Park, A.J.; Brandel, M.G.; Dobke, M.K.; Gosman, A.A. Evaluation of Information Sources in Plastic Surgery Decision-making. Cureus 2018, 10, e2773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Stahl, J.-P.; Cohen, R.; Denis, F.; Gaudelus, J.; Martinot, A.; Lery, T.; Lepetit, H. The impact of the web and social networks on vaccination. New challenges and opportunities offered to fight against vaccine hesitancy. Méd. Mal. Infect. 2016, 46, 117–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Das, A.; Anstey, M.; Bass, F.; Blythe, D.; Buhr, H.; Campbell, L.; Davda, A.; Delaney, A.; Gattas, D.; Green, C.; et al. Internet health information use by surrogate decision makers of patients admitted to the intensive care unit: A multicentre survey. Crit. Care Resusc. 2019, 21, 305–310. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Kazley, A.S.; Hamidi, B.; Balliet, W.; Baliga, P. Social Media Use among Living Kidney Donors and Recipients: Survey on Current Practice and Potential. J. Med. Internet Res. 2016, 18, e328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braun, L.A.; Zomorodbakhsch, B.; Keinki, C.; Huebner, J. Information needs, communication and usage of social media by cancer patients and their relatives. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 145, 1865–1875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Himes, B.E.; Weitzman, E.R. Innovations in health information technologies for chronic pulmonary diseases. Respir. Res. 2016, 17, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Fernandes, L.D.S.; Calado, C.; Araujo, C.A.S. Redes sociais e práticas em saúde: Influência de uma comunidade online de diabetes na adesão ao tratamento. Cien. Saude Colet. 2018, 23, 3357–3368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heitkemper, E.M.; Mamykina, L.; Travers, J.; Smaldone, A. Do health information technology self-management interventions improve glycemic control in medically underserved adults with diabetes? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2017, 24, 1024–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zucco, R.; Lavano, F.; Anfosso, R.; Bianco, A.; Pileggi, C.; Pavia, M. Internet and social media use for antibiotic-related information seeking: Findings from a survey among adult population in Italy. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2018, 111, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kobayashi, R.; Ishizaki, M. Examining the Interaction between Medical Information Seeking Online and Understanding: Exploratory Study. JMIR Cancer 2019, 5, e13240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcu, A.; Muller, C.; Ream, E.; Whitaker, K.L. Online Information-Seeking about Potential Breast Cancer Symptoms: Capturing Online Behavior with an Internet Browsing Tracking Tool. J. Med. Internet Res. 2019, 21, e12400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cassidy, J.T.; Fitzgerald, E.; Cassidy, E.S.; Cleary, M.; Byrne, D.P.; Devitt, B.M.; Baker, J.F. YouTube provides poor information regarding anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2018, 26, 840–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jain, N.; Abboudi, H.; Kalic, A.; Gill, F.; Al-Hasani, H. YouTube as a source of patient information for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate. Clin. Radiol. 2019, 74, 79.e11–79.e14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, D.K.-K.; Cheung, M.-K. Online Health Information Seeking and eHealth Literacy among Patients Attending a Primary Care Clinic in Hong Kong: A Cross-Sectional Survey. J. Med. Internet Res. 2019, 21, e10831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Chen, Y.-Y.; Li, C.-M.; Liang, J.-C.; Tsai, C.-C. Health Information Obtained from the Internet and Changes in Medical Decision Making: Questionnaire Development and Cross-Sectional Survey. J. Med. Internet Res. 2018, 20, e47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Corrales, D.M.; Wells, A.E.; Radecki Breitkopf, C.; Pena, G.; Kaplan, A.L.; King, L.S.; Robazetti, S.C.; Dinh, T.A. Internet Use by Gynecologic Oncology Patients and Its Relationship with Anxiety. J. Health Commun. 2018, 23, 299–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, S.S.-L.; Goonawardene, N. Internet Health Information Seeking and the Patient-Physician Relationship: A Systematic Review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2017, 19, e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilmour, J.; Strong, A.; Chan, H.; Hanna, S.; Huntington, A. Primary health-care nurses and Internet health information-seeking: Access, barriers and quality checks. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 2016, 22, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khodaveisi, T.; Sadoughi, F.; Novin, K. Required Data Elements and Requirements of a Teleoncology System to Provide Treatment Plans for Patients with Breast Cancer. Int. J. Cancer Manag. 2020, 13, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alpert, J.M.; Womble, F.E. Just What the Doctor Tweeted: Physicians’ Challenges and Rewards of Using Twitter. Health Commun. 2016, 31, 824–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Organizacion Mundial de la Salud; Consejo Internacional de enfermeras. Situación de la enfermería en el Mundo 2020. Salud Publica Mex. 2020, 24, 683–690. [Google Scholar]
- Enfermería-OPS/OMS. Organización Panamericana de la Salud. Available online: https://www.paho.org/es/temas/enfermeria (accessed on 25 August 2021).
- Loan, L.A.; Parnell, T.A.; Stichler, J.F.; Boyle, D.K.; Allen, P.; VanFosson, C.A.; Barton, A.J. Call for action: Nurses must play a critical role to enhance health literacy. Nurs. Outlook 2018, 66, 97–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stewart, D.F.A.A.; Tuipulotu, D.A.A.; Al Darazi, D.F.; Aiken, D.L.H.; Betker, D.C.; Buchan, P.J.; Debout, D.C.; Dussault, P.G.; Espinoza, D.P.; Hassmiller, D.S.B.; et al. Enfermería: Una voz para Liderar. Llevando al Mundo Hacia la Salud. 2020. Available online: https://2020.icnvoicetolead.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/IND_Toolkit_Spanish_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 17 September 2021).
- Margaret, A.; Phyllis, R. Marco de las Competencias del CIE para la Enfermera Generalista. 2003. Available online: http://www.enfermeriacantabria.com/web_enfermeriacantabria/docs/Marco_competencias_e.pdf (accessed on 17 September 2021).
- Madrigal, L.; Escoffery, C. Electronic Health Behaviors among US Adults with Chronic Disease: Cross-Sectional Survey. J. Med. Internet Res. 2019, 21, e11240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gonzalez, G.; Vaculik, K.; Khalil, C.; Zektser, Y.; Arnold, C.; Almario, C.V.; Spiegel, B.M.R.; Anger, J.T. Women’s Experience with Stress Urinary Incontinence: Insights from Social Media Analytics. J. Urol. 2020, 203, 962–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tang, S.Y.Q.; Israel, J.S.; Poore, S.O.; Afifi, A.M. Facebook Facts. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2018, 141, 1106–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hairston, T.K.; Links, A.R.; Harris, V.; Tunkel, D.E.; Walsh, J.; Beach, M.C.; Boss, E.F. Evaluation of Parental Perspectives and Concerns about Pediatric Tonsillectomy in Social Media. JAMA Otolaryngol. Neck Surg. 2019, 145, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Featherall, J.; Lapin, B.; Chaitoff, A.; Havele, S.A.; Thompson, N.; Katzan, I. Characterization of Patient Interest in Provider-Based Consumer Health Information Technology: Survey Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2018, 20, e128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eysenbach, G. Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J. Med. Internet Res. 2004, 6, 736–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garcimartin, P.; Comin-Colet, J.; Delgado-Hito, P.; Badosa-Marcé, N.; Linas-Alonso, A. Transcultural adaptation and validation of the patient empowerment in long-term conditions questionnaire. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2017, 17, 324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bidmon, S.; Terlutter, R. Gender differences in searching for health information on the internet and the virtual patient-physician relationship in Germany: Exploratory results on how men and women differ and why. J. Med. Internet Res. 2015, 17, e156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wynn, R.; Oyeyemi, S.O.; Budrionis, A.; Marco-Ruiz, L.; Yigzaw, K.Y.; Bellika, J.G. Electronic health use in a representative sample of 18,497 respondents in Norway (the seventh tromsø study—Part 1): Population-based questionnaire study. JMIR Med. Inform. 2020, 8, e13106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Houwelingen, C.T.M.; Ettema, R.G.A.; Kort, H.S.M.; Ten Cate, O. Internet-generation nursing students’ view of technology-based health care. J. Nurs. Educ. 2017, 56, 717–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, H.; Xie, B. Health literacy in the eHealth era: A systematic review of the literature. Patient Educ. Couns. 2017, 100, 1073–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heiney, S.P.; Donevant, S.B.; Arp Adams, S.; Parker, P.D.; Chen, H.; Levkoff, S. A Smartphone App for Self-Management of Heart Failure in Older African Americans: Feasibility and Usability Study. JMIR Aging 2020, 3, e17142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nissen, L.; Lindhardt, T. A qualitative study of COPD-patients’ experience of a telemedicine intervention. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2017, 107, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bakogiannis, C.; Tsarouchas, A.; Mouselimis, D.; Lazaridis, C.; Theofillogianakos, E.K.; Billis, A.; Tzikas, S.; Fragakis, N.; Bamidis, P.D.; Papadopoulos, C.E.; et al. A Patient-Oriented App (ThessHF) to Improve Self-Care Quality in Heart Failure: From Evidence-Based Design to Pilot Study. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2021, 9, e24271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bentley, C.L.; Powell, L.; Potter, S.; Parker, J.; Mountain, G.A.; Bartlett, Y.K.; Farwer, J.; O’Connor, C.; Burns, J.; Cresswell, R.L.; et al. The Use of a Smartphone App and an Activity Tracker to Promote Physical Activity in the Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Randomized Controlled Feasibility Study. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2020, 8, e16203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Park, S.K.; Bang, C.H.; Lee, S.H. Evaluating the effect of a smartphone app-based self-management program for people with COPD: A randomized controlled trial. Appl. Nurs. Res. 2020, 52, 151231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Active | Autonomous | Informed | Responsible | All of These | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ability to take decisions | 66 | 82 | 65 | 66 | 75 |
Educational level | 11 | 12 | 14 | 18 | 25 |
Frequency | Number of Respondents | % |
---|---|---|
Never | 9 | 1.06 |
Rarely | 538 | 63.44 |
Usually | 295 | 34.78 |
Always | 6 | 0.70 |
Communication Channel | Used by | % |
---|---|---|
Printed material | 610 | 71.93 |
Oral communication | 340 | 40.09 |
Video and images | 256 | 30.18 |
Web pages | 254 | 29.95 |
Apps | 183 | 21.58 |
Others | 47 | 5.54 |
Channel | Printed Material | Oral Communication | Video and Images | Web Pages | Apps |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
20–30 | 74.78 | 40.06 | 30.77 | 21.79 | 17.31 |
31–40 | 64.86 | 42.79 | 24.32 | 26.13 | 19.37 |
41–50 | 70.88 | 36.26 | 31.32 | 34.62 | 24.18 |
51–60 | 78.95 | 44.74 | 38.60 | 48.25 | 33.33 |
+60 | 77.78 | 16.67 | 27.78 | 55.56 | 22.22 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Navarro Martínez, O.; Igual García, J.; Traver Salcedo, V. Estimating Patient Empowerment and Nurses’ Use of Digital Strategies: eSurvey Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9844. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189844
Navarro Martínez O, Igual García J, Traver Salcedo V. Estimating Patient Empowerment and Nurses’ Use of Digital Strategies: eSurvey Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(18):9844. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189844
Chicago/Turabian StyleNavarro Martínez, Olga, Jorge Igual García, and Vicente Traver Salcedo. 2021. "Estimating Patient Empowerment and Nurses’ Use of Digital Strategies: eSurvey Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 18: 9844. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189844