Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Sep 23;9(9):e20309.
doi: 10.2196/20309.

The Impact of Previsit Contextual Data Collection on Patient-Provider Communication and Patient Activation: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Jeana M Holt #  1   2 , Rachel Cusatis #  3 , Aaron Winn #  4 , Onur Asan #  5 , Charles Spanbauer #  6 , Joni S Williams #  7 , Kathryn E Flynn #  8 , Melek Somai #  8 , Purushottam Laud #  6 , Bradley H Crotty #  8
Affiliations

The Impact of Previsit Contextual Data Collection on Patient-Provider Communication and Patient Activation: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Jeana M Holt et al. JMIR Res Protoc. .

Abstract

Background: Patient-centered care is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values. To provide patient-centered care, clinicians need to know and incorporate patients' context into their communication and care with patients. Patient contextual data (PCD) encompass social determinants of health and patients' needs, values, goals, and preferences relevant to their care. PCD can be challenging to collect as a routine component of the time-limited primary care visit.

Objective: This study aims to determine if patient-provider communication and patient activation are different for patient users and patient nonusers of an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated PCD tool and assess if the impact of using PCD on patient-provider communication and patient activation differs for Black and White patients.

Methods: We describe a randomized controlled trial of a prospective cohort of non-Hispanic White and Black patients who receive primary care services at a midwestern academic health care system in the United States. We will evaluate whether providing PCD through a consumer informatics tool enhances patient-provider communication, as measured by the Communication Assessment Tool, and we will evaluate patient activation, as measured by the Patient Activation Measure for PCD tool users and nonusers. Furthermore, owing to racial disparities in care and communication, we seek to determine if the adoption and use of the tool might narrow the differences between patient groups.

Results: The trial was funded in November 2017 and received local ethics review approval in February 2019. The study began recruitment in April 2019 and enrollment concluded in October 2019 with 301 participants. The analysis was completed in May 2020, and trial results are expected to be published in winter 2020.

Conclusions: Recently, there has been increased attention to the role of health information technology tools to enable patients to collaborate with providers through the sharing of PCD. The adoption of such tools may overcome the barriers of current EHRs by directly engaging patients to submit their contextual data. Effectively, these tools would support the EHR in providing a more holistic understanding of the patient. Research further supports that individuals who have robust digital engagement using consumer informatics tools have higher participation in treatment follow-up and self-care across populations. Therefore, it is critical to investigate interventions that elicit and share patients' social risks and care preferences with the health care team as a mechanism to improve individualized care and reduce the gap in health outcomes.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03766841; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03766841.

International registered report identifier (irrid): RR1-10.2196/20309.

Keywords: consumer health informatics; mobile phone; patient participation; patient-centered care; physician-patient relations; randomized controlled trial; vulnerable populations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Randomized controlled trial study design.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Patient contextual data tool one-screen summary.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Randomized controlled trial Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Dzau VJ, McClellan MB, McGinnis JM, Burke SP, Coye MJ, Diaz A, Daschle TA, Frist WH, Gaines M, Hamburg MA, Henney JE, Kumanyika S, Leavitt MO, Parker RM, Sandy LG, Schaeffer LD, Steele GD, Thompson P, Zerhouni E. Vital directions for health and health care: priorities from a national academy of medicine initiative. J Am Med Assoc. 2017 Apr 11;317(14):1461–70. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.1964. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Epstein RM, Street RL. The values and value of patient-centered care. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9(2):100–3. doi: 10.1370/afm.1239. http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=21403134 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Institute of Medicine . Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2001. - PubMed
    1. World Health Organization . Social Determinants of Health: The Solid Facts. Denmark, UK: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2003.
    1. Holt JM, Cusatis R, Asan O, Williams J, Nukuna S, Flynn KE, Moore J, Crotty BH. Incorporating patient-generated contextual data into care: clinician perspectives using the consolidated framework for implementation science. Healthc (Amst) 2020 Mar;8(1):100369. doi: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2019.100369. - DOI - PubMed

Associated data