Cited by 150Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Evaluation of Internet-Based Technology for Supporting Self-Care: Problems Encountered by Patients and Caregivers When Using Self-Care Applications

Open access
Nijland, Nicol, van Gemert-Pijnen, Julia, Boer, Henk, Steehouder, Michaël F, Seydel, Erwin R·2008·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have shown that many patients are interested in Internet-based technology that enables them to control their own care. As a result, innovative eHealth services are evolving rapidly, including self-assessment tools and secure patient-caregiver email communication. It is interesting to explore how these technologies can be used for supporting self-care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine user-centered criteria for successful application of Internet-based technology used in primary care for supporting self-care. METHODS: We conducted scenario-based tests combined with in-depth interviews among 14 caregivers and 14 patients/consumers to describe the use of various self-care applications and the accompanying user problems. We focused on the user-friendliness of the applications, the quality of care provided by the applications, and the implementation of the applications in practice. RESULTS: Problems with the user-friendliness of the self-care applications concerned inadequate navigation structures and search options and lack of feedback features. Patients want to retrieve health information with as little effort as possible; however, the navigation and search functionalities of the applications appeared incapable of handling patients' health complaints efficiently. Among caregivers, the lack of feedback and documentation possibilities caused inconvenience. Caregivers wanted to know how patients acted on their advice, but the applications did not offer an adequate feedback feature. Quality of care problems were mainly related to insufficient tailoring of information to patients' needs and to efficiency problems. Patients expected personalized advice to control their state of health, but the applications failed to deliver this. Language (semantics) also appeared as an obstacle to providing appropriate and useful self-care advice. Caregivers doubted the reliability of the computer-generated information and the efficiency and effectiveness of secure email consultation. Legal or ethical issues with respect to possible misuse of email consultation also caused concerns. Implementation problems were mainly experienced by caregivers due to unclear policy on email consultation and the lack of training for email consultations. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' and caregivers' expectations did not correspond with their experiences of the use of the Internet-based applications for self-care. Patients thought that the applications would support them in solving their health problems. Caregivers were more reserved about the applications because of medico-legal concerns about misuse. However, the applications failed to support self-care because eHealth is more than just a technological intervention. The design of the applications should include a way of thinking about how to deliver health care with the aid of technology. The most powerful application for self-care was secure email consultation, combined with a suitable triage mechanism to empower patients' self-awareness. Future research should focus on the effectiveness of such Web-based triage mechanisms for medical complaints and on the development of interactive features to enhance patients' self-care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/jmir.957

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 150

Authors
Nijland, N., van Gemert-Pijnen, J., Boer, H., Steehouder, M. F., & Seydel, E. R.
Affiliations
University of Twente (NL)
Corresponding author
Nijland, Nicol
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2008-05-15
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
e13
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2116011715
Cited by
150
References
28
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 10
FWCI
33.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
self-care, e-health, ease of use, user-centered design, primary care, caregivers, patients, triage, personalized health advice, medical information retrieval, implementation in practice, scenario-based testing, usability problems
MeSH terms
Documentation, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Netherlands, Terminology as Topic, Physician-Patient Relations, Self Care, Triage, User-Computer Interface, Information Storage and Retrieval, Caregivers, Internet, Access to Information, Electronic Mail, Consumer Health Information

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review