Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Worldwide experiences and opinions of healthcare providers on eHealth for patients with interstitial lung diseases in the COVID-19 era

Gizal Nakshbandi, Catharina C. Moor, Kerri A. Johannson, Toby M. Maher, Michael Kreuter, Marlies S. Wijsenbeek
ERJ Open Research 2021 7: 00405-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00405-2021
Gizal Nakshbandi
1Dept of Respiratory Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Catharina C. Moor
1Dept of Respiratory Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kerri A. Johannson
2Dept of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Kerri A. Johannson
Toby M. Maher
3Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Kreuter
4Center for Interstitial and Rare Lung Diseases, Thoraxklinik, University of Heidelberg, Germany and German Center for Lung Research, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Michael Kreuter
Marlies S. Wijsenbeek
1Dept of Respiratory Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: m.wijsenbeek-lourens@erasmusmc.nl
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The #COVID19 pandemic has led to an increase in the use of eHealth for patients with interstitial lung disease. Healthcare providers worldwide are positive towards further implementation of eHealth for research and clinical practice. https://bit.ly/3h2545M

To the Editor:

Interstitial lung diseases (ILD) comprise a group of pulmonary diseases characterised by diffuse parenchymal abnormalities, which can lead to irreversible pulmonary fibrosis [1].

In current practice, outpatient clinic visits including pulmonary function measurements every 3–6 months are typically used to monitor disease course and determine treatment strategies [2]. The availability of digital technologies may enhance efficiency and precision of disease monitoring at a lower burden to both patients and clinicians, and may change routine clinical practice.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted almost all aspects of care for patients with ILD. Decreased hospital capacity and avoidance of face-to-face contact have fostered an accelerated implementation of eHealth. Replacing outpatient clinic visits with video consultation and home monitoring of patients have been proposed as strategies to provide ongoing care for patients with ILD, given their increased risk for severe outcomes associated with COVID-19 infection [3–6]. However, the extent to which healthcare providers (HCPs) have implemented eHealth in daily practice, and their perspectives on digitalisation of care for patients with ILD have not yet been assessed. These insights will help further shape digital healthcare.

The aim of our study was to characterise the experience of HCPs around the world on eHealth tools for patients with ILD, and to understand opportunities and barriers for further implementation of eHealth and home monitoring in this patient population.

Between October 2020 and January 2021, HCPs with ILD expertise were invited by email to complete a 28 question online survey using Survio® (www.survio.com). HCPs provided informed consent for participation. eHealth was defined as “the use of technology to improve health and/or quality of healthcare”, and online home monitoring as “tracking clinical results measured at home using an online application”. Microsoft Excel and SPSS statistics version.25.0.0.1 were used for data collection and analysis.

In total, 286 HCPs from 54 different countries responded: 89.2% were pulmonologists, 7% rheumatologists, 1.7% ILD specialist nurses, and 2.1% others. The mean±sd age was 46±9.9 years, and 50% were male. 52.8% of HCPs had over 10 years of experience with care for patients with ILD, and 49.7% reported seeing more than 100 patients with ILD per year.

62.2% of HCPs stated that patients are able to communicate with the ILD clinic via email, and 36.0% reported that patients have the possibility to view their own clinical records online.

Approximately half of HCPs currently use eHealth; a minority (8.4%) already started before the COVID-19 pandemic (figure 1a). Of the 157 HCPs with eHealth experience, 39.5% use it in daily care, 25.5% for research purposes, and 35.0% for both research and daily care. All respondents from Oceania (100.0%, n=6), and the majority from North America (77.6%, n=58), and South America (58.5%, n=41) used eHealth. In Europe, approximately half of participating HCPs (47.7%, n=149) currently use eHealth, and in Asia around one-third (35.5%, n=31). The only African HCP in this survey did not use eHealth. The most frequently used forms of eHealth are video consultations (67.6%), online patient portals (30.2%), online home monitoring (21.8%), and online self-help applications (8.9%). Of the 129 HCPs without experience, 41.9% state that they would like to use eHealth, but don't know how to set it up.

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

Worldwide experiences and opinions on eHealth for patients with interstitial lung disease. a) Effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. b) Preferences and current use of home monitoring. c) Added value of online home monitoring. d) Hurdles for implementation.

HCPs would like to monitor home-based oxygen saturation, symptom scores, side-effects, physical activity levels, quality of life, and home spirometry. However, only a minority are currently collecting these parameters (figure 1b). Few HCPs also mentioned interest in environmental exposures, treatment compliance, tele-rehabilitation, laboratory results, blood pressure, and heart rate as part of home monitoring.

Almost all HCPs (96.5%) believe online home monitoring to be of added value, either for improving quality of care, research or registry purposes (figure 1c). If patients collect online data, 75.2% of HCPs would like to have access to the results; 18.9% would want patients to contact their HCP if their condition worsens. Only 1% think home monitoring data are of predominant interest for patients. Three-quarters of HCPs stated that they would like to receive automated alerts if data collected by patients show disease deterioration. Currently collected online data is mainly followed up by medical specialists, ILD specialist nurses, and research nurses. Most HCPs (80.8%) would like to have contact with patients via video consultations.

Implementation of eHealth may also pose challenges. Technical issues were mentioned as the main challenge by most HCPs, followed by reimbursement, reliability, privacy, and ethical issues (figure 1d). Other mentioned hurdles for implementation were management and interpretation of large volumes of data, suitability of eHealth for some patients, accessibility, and time and human resources to monitor results. 59.8% of HCPs stated that they do not have staff available to teach patients how to use home monitoring applications. 34.3% stated that there is no reimbursement for eHealth in their country, and 37.8% do not know if there is reimbursement available.

Our results reveal that most HCPs were positive towards implementation of eHealth, including online home monitoring applications, not only for daily care, but also for research and registry purposes. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, <10% of HCPs used eHealth. The COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated the implementation of eHealth for patients with ILD, with half of surveyed HCPs currently using a form of eHealth.

Most HCPs would like to use different home monitoring applications, such as home-based oxygen saturation, symptom scores, side-effect monitoring, physical activity trackers, quality of life measures, and home spirometry. Previous studies have shown that online home monitoring is feasible, reliable and can even be beneficial for patients with ILD [7, 8]. A home monitoring programme integrated with home spirometry improved general wellbeing of patients with ILD, and provided opportunities to tailor medication use [7, 9]. Interestingly, oxygen saturation was the most desired parameter to measure at home. This may have been influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic [10], though it is also considered an important measure to monitor disease course and guide titration of oxygen supplementation in ILD, regardless of COVID-19 [2]. Notably, three-quarters of HCPs would like to monitor physical activity levels, which is done infrequently in current practice. Until now, few studies have evaluated the use of physical activity trackers in ILD [11–13]. Physical activity trackers may be useful to monitor and predict disease deterioration over time, encourage patients to exercise, and enable tele-rehabilitation [11–13].

Few HCPs currently use home monitoring applications for research or clinical care, which may be due to the barriers identified in this survey. Most HCPs have no staff available to instruct patients and follow up results, and reimbursement for eHealth is lacking. Technical and analytic issues were encountered in previous home spirometry studies [14, 15]. This is consistent with our survey results, with technical issues being the most frequently reported hurdle. To facilitate implementation of eHealth in regular care, focus should be on improving technical infrastructure, optimisation of automated alert settings and related legal requirements, establishing financial reimbursement plans, and developing training programmes for patients and caregivers. Attention should be paid to the impact on quality of care and suitability for different patient groups. For research and registry purposes, consensus documents on technical and analytical requirements are needed to ensure standardised collection and privacy compliant sharing. To enable wide-scale implementation of eHealth for patients with ILD both during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, these challenges should be addressed.

A limitation of the study is the possibility that HCPs with pre-existing interest in eHealth preferentially responded to the survey, leading to selection bias. However, due to the high number of responses from HCPs around the world, we believe our results represent the experiences and opinions on eHealth of a diversity of HCPs.

In conclusion, this study shows that HCPs worldwide are positive towards implementing eHealth applications. These results are encouraging and can be used to shape further integration of eHealth in care and research for patients with ILD.

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: G. Nakshbandi has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: C.C. Moor reports grants and other support, paid to her institution, from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: K.A. Johannson reports advisory board and consulting fees, speaker honoraria, travel fees, and a research grant from Boehringer Ingelheim; advisory board fees speaker honoraria from Hoffman La Roche Ltd; advisory board and consulting fees from Theravance and Blade Therapeutics; grants from the Chest Foundation, the University of Calgary School of Medicine and the Pulmonary Fibrosis Society of Calgary; consulting fees and a research grant from the Three Lakes Foundation; and consulting fees from Pliant Therapeutic, all outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: T.M. Maher has, via his institution, received industry–academic funding from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline R&D, and has received consultancy or speaker's fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blade Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Galecto, GlaxoSmithKline R&D, IQVIA, Pliant, Respivant, Roche and Theravance.

  • Conflict of interest: M. Kreuter reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche, and personal fees from Galapagos, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: M.S. Wijsenbeek reports grants and other support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Hoffman la Roche, and support from Galapagos, Respivant, Galecto, BMS, Novartis, Puretech and NeRRe Therapeutics, outside the submitted work; all grants and fees were paid to her institution.

  • Received June 18, 2021.
  • Accepted June 21, 2021.
  • Copyright ©The authors 2021
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org

References

  1. ↵
    1. Wijsenbeek M,
    2. Cottin V
    . Spectrum of fibrotic lung diseases. N Engl J Med 2020; 383: 958–968. doi:10.1056/NEJMra2005230
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Raghu G,
    2. Collard HR,
    3. Egan JJ, et al.
    An official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT statement: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: evidence-based guidelines for diagnosis and management. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2011; 183: 788–824. doi:10.1164/rccm.2009-040GL
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Antoniou KM,
    2. Raghu G,
    3. Tzilas V, et al.
    Management of patients with interstitial lung disease in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Respiration 2020; 99: 625–627. doi:10.1159/000509523
    OpenUrl
    1. Wong AW,
    2. Fidler L,
    3. Marcoux V, et al.
    Practical considerations for the diagnosis and treatment of fibrotic interstitial lung disease during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Chest 2020; 158: 1069–1078. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.019
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Drake TM,
    2. Docherty AB,
    3. Harrison EM, et al.
    Outcome of hospitalization for COVID-19 in patients with interstitial lung disease. An international multicenter study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 202: 1656–1665. doi:10.1164/rccm.202007-2794OC
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Nakshbandi G,
    2. Moor CC,
    3. Wijsenbeek MS
    . Home monitoring for patients with ILD and the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: 1172–1174. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30452-5
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Moor CC,
    2. Mostard RLM,
    3. Grutters JC, et al.
    Home monitoring in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. A randomized controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 202: 393–401. doi:10.1164/rccm.202002-0328OC
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Moor CC,
    2. van Leuven SI,
    3. Wijsenbeek MS, et al.
    Feasibility of online home spirometry in systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease: a pilot study. Rheumatology 2020; 60: 2467–2471. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keaa607
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Johannson KA
    . Remote monitoring in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: home is where the bluetooth-enabled spirometer is. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 202: 316–317. doi:10.1164/rccm.202005-1532ED
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Carroll O,
    2. MacCann R,
    3. Reilly A, et al.
    Remote monitoring of oxygen saturation in individuals with COVID-19 pneumonia. Eur Respir J 2020; 56: 2001492. doi:10.1183/13993003.01492-2020
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Bahmer T,
    2. Kirsten AM,
    3. Waschki B, et al.
    Clinical correlates of reduced physical activity in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Respiration 2016; 91: 497–502. doi:10.1159/000446607
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Moor CC,
    2. van den Berg CAL,
    3. Visser LS, et al.
    Diurnal variation in forced vital capacity in patients with fibrotic interstitial lung disease using home spirometry. ERJ Open Res 2020; 6: 00054–02020.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Drent M,
    2. Elfferich M,
    3. Breedveld E, et al.
    Benefit of wearing an activity tracker in sarcoidosis. J Pers Med 2020; 10: 97. doi:10.3390/jpm10030097
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Maher TM,
    2. Corte TJ,
    3. Fischer A, et al.
    Pirfenidone in patients with unclassifiable progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: 147–157. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30341-8
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Noth I,
    2. Cottin V,
    3. Chaudhuri N, et al.
    Home spirometry in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: data from the INMARK trial. Eur Respir J 2021; 58: 2001518. doi:10.1183/13993003.01518-2020
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 7 Issue 3 Table of Contents
ERJ Open Research: 7 (3)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Worldwide experiences and opinions of healthcare providers on eHealth for patients with interstitial lung diseases in the COVID-19 era
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Worldwide experiences and opinions of healthcare providers on eHealth for patients with interstitial lung diseases in the COVID-19 era
Gizal Nakshbandi, Catharina C. Moor, Kerri A. Johannson, Toby M. Maher, Michael Kreuter, Marlies S. Wijsenbeek
ERJ Open Research Jul 2021, 7 (3) 00405-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00405-2021

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Worldwide experiences and opinions of healthcare providers on eHealth for patients with interstitial lung diseases in the COVID-19 era
Gizal Nakshbandi, Catharina C. Moor, Kerri A. Johannson, Toby M. Maher, Michael Kreuter, Marlies S. Wijsenbeek
ERJ Open Research Jul 2021, 7 (3) 00405-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00405-2021
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Interstitial and orphan lung disease
  • Respiratory infections and tuberculosis
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Aspergillus colonisation in severe CAP
  • SARS-CoV-2 infection sequelae on exercise response
  • Cardiorespiratory fitness and small airway obstruction
Show more Research letters

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About ERJ Open Research

  • Editorial board
  • Journal information
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Online ISSN: 2312-0541

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society