Next Article in Journal
Implications of the Online Teaching Model Derived from the COVID-19 Lockdown Situation for Anxiety and Executive Functioning in Spanish Children and Adolescents
Previous Article in Journal
Ergonomic Comparison of Four Dental Workplace Concepts Using Inertial Motion Capture for Dentists and Dental Assistants
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 18
Issue 19
10.3390/ijerph181910454
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Study Protocol

Setting-Sensitive Conceptualization and Assessment of Quality of Life in Telemedical Care—Study Protocol of the Tele-QoL Project

by
Klara Greffin
1,*,
Holger Muehlan
1,
Neeltje van den Berg
2,
Wolfgang Hoffmann
2,
Oliver Ritter
3,4,
Michael Oeff
4,
Georg Schomerus
5 and
Silke Schmidt
1
1
Department of Psychology, University of Greifswald, 17489 Greifswald, Germany
2
Department of Health Care Epidemiology and Community Health, Institute of Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, 17489 Greifswald, Germany
3
Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, 16816 Neuruppin, Germany
4
Department of Cardiology, Brandenburg City Hospital, 14770 Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany
5
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medicine Leipzig, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(19), 10454; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910454
Submission received: 2 September 2021 / Revised: 29 September 2021 / Accepted: 30 September 2021 / Published: 5 October 2021
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Quality of life (QoL) is a core patient-reported outcome in healthcare research, alongside primary clinical outcomes. A conceptual, operational, and psychometric elaboration of QoL in the context of TM is needed, because standardized instruments to assess QoL do not sufficiently represent essential aspects of intended outcomes of telemedical applications (TM). The overall aim is to develop an instrument that can adequately capture QoL in TM. For that purpose, an extended working model of QoL will be derived. Subsequently, an instrument will be developed and validated that captures those aspects of QoL that are influenced by TM. The initial exploratory study section includes (a) a systematic literature review, (b) a qualitative survey for concept elicitation, and (c) pre-testings using cognitive debriefings with patients and an expert workshop. The second quantitative section consists of an online expert survey and two patient surveys for piloting and validation of the newly developed instrument. The resulting questionnaire will assess central experiences of patients regarding telemedical applications and its impact on QoL more sensitively. Its use as adjunct instrument will lead to a more appropriate evaluation of TM and contribute to the improvement of care tailored to patients’ individual needs.

1. Introduction

Telemedicine (TM) is a vital part of today’s patient care [1,2]. It affects how healthcare services are provided on a structural level, and therewith also influences clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Quality of life (QoL) is one of the central PROs in the context of TM evaluation studies [3]. However, evidence-based attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of TM applications in improving QoL reveal ambiguous evidence. Although there is some documentation that using TM applications can improve QoL [4], many findings remain inconsistent [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. As such, the reported effects are often not clinically relevant or statistically significant, and they also differ depending on the disease groups studied [13,14]. From a methodological perspective, QoL is frequently assessed with standardized instruments that do not sufficiently represent the most important aspects of the intended outcomes of TM applications. For instance, remote patient monitoring applications are mainly used in heart failure patients to improve distant monitoring of health parameters by medical staff [15]. For the patient, TM use aims to increase patients’ disease-related security [16] and control experience in their personal environment. Those aspects are linked to QoL of patients’, but are not yet assessed within effectiveness studies [17]. Thus, there is a discrepancy between the primary implementation intention and the corresponding evaluation in TM applications.
Furthermore, current assessment-related problems of QoL include that item formulations of PROs are based on very specific disease-related symptoms or experiences. There are challenges in the comparability due to the heterogeneity of TM applications, models of care, and the different target groups [18]. Additionally, effects on QoL are often limited to a selection of specific scales and long-term effects are usually not evaluated [13,14]. Thus, there is a need for a generic patient-centered measurement approach that can capture the expected overall impact of TM [19]. An assessment of QoL in TM derived from such an approach should consequently refer to frequently used TM applications and be based on frequently studied disease groups. Until now, there is no QoL instrument that is sensitive for the TM setting and takes these points into account. As a conclusion, there is a need for a more elaborate conceptual, operational, and hence psychometric foundation of the construct of QoL in the context of TM applications. The Tele-QoL project aims at adapting a general concept of QoL to the TM context. As a next step, an appropriate survey instrument to assess QoL in TM settings will be developed.

2. Relevance

An increasing life expectancy and a low birth rate mean the global population is, on average, getting older. This demographic change [20] will increase the demand for TM healthcare solutions. A growing absolute number of older people will lead to increasing age-associated chronic diseases and multi-morbidity [21,22,23]. In order to ensure high-quality healthcare in the future—especially in rural areas—various innovations have been developed in primary and secondary care that have integrated TM applications as a central component [24]. Recently, these TM applications have been the subject of many studies and reviews to investigate or prove their effectiveness [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. While morbidity and clinical indicators have been defined as primary outcome indicators for TM applications in selected disease groups, such as chronic heart failure, QoL has been defined as a primary outcome indicator from patients’ perspective. Reviews [12,25] have shown that it has not yet been possible to document the effect of telemonitoring on QoL, and the findings are inconsistent across specific clinical patient groups and different TM applications [5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. However, the effects of telemonitoring on the daily life of patients, as well as their QoL, well-being, and the subjective experience of control, appear to be considerable: they go beyond the intended health effects and also affect psychosocial and ethical aspects [13,26]. This results in a substantial deficit in considering the patient perspective with regard to the content of patient-reported outcomes in TM studies. The Tele-QoL questionnaire will assess the neglected aspects from a patient’s perspective. Additionally, the project results will have great relevance with regard to different levels:
  • Improvement of TM applications: A sensitive assessment can result in improvements of TM applications and individual TM care for patients with chronic diseases and mental disorders, making patient-reported and care-relevant information accessible to all professionals. This also includes recommendations on the design of the development, implementation, and evaluation of TM applications to be even better-tailored to patient needs.
  • Improvement of outcome monitoring: Both the expected increase in numbers of patients and the decrease in the number of primary-care physicians in rural regions require flexible, effective, and evaluated concepts of healthcare provision, particularly to ensure primary care for the population [24]. The expected results of the Tele-QoL project are crucial because they refine the assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)/patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in TM studies. Thus, an enhanced outcome monitoring can be made available in the field of TM care delivery, which takes the patients’ perspective into consideration.
  • Improvement of quality assurance: The QoL of patients is an essential outcome for therapies. Especially for elderly patients with chronic diseases and psychiatric patients, the focus is often not on full recovery but on disease management, i.e., the limitation of symptoms and circumstantially satisfactory QoL [27,28]. The results of this project are vital, because they improve and extend the recording of PROMs and PREMs in TM studies. This can help to implement more valid and reliable outcome measures in TM-care settings, which, in turn, helps ensure the quality of care.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Ethics

The planned study is committed to the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. In addition, researchers guarantee to meet relevant legal and ethical requirements as well as all relevant safety regulations. The project was approved by the Ethics Committee at the University Medicine Greifswald (BB 023/18) and the State Medical Association of Brandenburg (AS466 (bB)/2018). Participating patients will be informed about the aims of the project and study procedures in written and oral form. Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Although the planned study is not a clinical trial and no specific medical interventions are conducted—apart from those treatments the patients are already receiving independently of the study, as part of their individual treatment plan—there are ethical challenges regarding possible problems caused by potential negative psychological effects arising in the interviews that need to be taken into account. Previous experience with qualitative health-services research among chronically ill patients suggests that such effects are rare and can be avoided if a therapeutically qualified person is available upon request.

3.2. Aims of the Study

  • Gap analysis: Identification of potential gaps between defined purpose, chosen constructs, and methods of measurement used within TM feasibility and effectiveness studies.
  • Concept elicitation: Re-conceptualization of QoL in the context of TM applications.
  • Instrument development: Development of an adjunct instrument to assess QoL in TM settings, piloting, and validation study for testing the psychometric performance of the instrument.

3.3. Design and Methods

The design includes an explorative study section that consists of a systematic literature review (gap analysis) and a qualitative survey (concept elicitation). A second quantitative approach with structured assessment (instrument development, pre-testing, piloting, and validation of the instrument) will follow.
  • Systematic literature review: Prior to the empirical investigations, a systematic literature review of existing outcome definitions, criteria of TM applications, and PROM’s/PREM’s from TM studies will be conducted. It aims to identify potential gaps between defined purpose, chosen constructs, and methods of measurement used within TM feasibility and effectiveness studies.
  • Qualitative studies (concept elicitation): Interviews and focus groups will be conducted by using semi-structured questionnaires to capture responses and discussions on expectations of, experiences with, and evaluations of TM applications. Additionally, the perceived impact of TM applications on QoL will be explored. While focus groups will be conducted in person, patients and TM professionals will be interviewed in person or via phone. The intensive use of qualitative survey methods is in line with existing recommendations of international PROMs/PREMs research [29].
  • Quantitative studies (testing): First, a pretesting of the questionnaire will be conducted, using the cognitive debriefing method “think aloud”. Afterwards, piloting and validation of the instrument for psychometric testing will follow in two independent samples.

3.4. Study Participants

3.4.1. Sample Size

Overall rationale: The sample of the qualitative and quantitative study part is designed to represent the heterogeneity of TM applications and patient populations to ensure that the results are more generalizable. Therefore, we will include the main groups of TM healthcare professionals and choose patient groups that are contrary with regard to their primary disease (e.g., mental vs. physical chronic disease), but often included in TM studies (e.g., depression vs. heart failure). Additionally, we will examine active and passive TM applications and compare them to standard care. Patients in the active TM application group receive regular phone calls, while patients in the passive TM application group are automatically monitored by a medical device. In essence, we aim to capture a variety of TM experiences from patients with different diseases, of different care spectrums, and from various sociodemographic backgrounds, as well as different TM experts.
Qualitative studies (concept elicitation): The number of focus groups and interviews with n = min. 30 is chosen in order to reach content saturation [30,31,32] and is described in Table 1. We aim at the realization of the following:
  • Focus groups with a total number of 32 patients to be able to allocate the number of patients from four groups equally (each n = 8). The four groups are a combination of patient’s disease (depression/heart failure) and type of care (TM/care as usual).
  • Focus groups with a total number of 30 TM professionals.
  • Thirty-two single interviews with patients to be able to allocate the number of patients from four groups equally (each n = 8). The four groups are a combination of patient’s disease (depression/heart failure) and type of care (TM/care as usual).
  • Thirty single interviews with TM professionals.
Quantitative studies (testing): Thirty-two patients (cognitive debriefing; see [33]) and at least five experts (expert workshop) will be invited for pretesting. The estimation of the sample size needed for piloting and validation is based on the preconditions of the more complex psychometric procedures such as exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and differential item functioning. However, the size of the item pool; the communalities of the items; and the number, item sizes, and eigenvalues of the factors are still unknown [34,35]. For the approximation of the necessary sample sizes, we reference simulation studies and reviews [36,37,38]. For piloting, we assume an estimated item size of about 50 ± 10 items, for validation of about 25 ± 10 items. For group comparison with two comparison groups per characteristic, consisting of type of care and disease group, in the final validation step, the approximated ratio of number of cases to items for piloting and validation is approximately equivalent to 4:1 (3:1 to 5:1) and thus corresponds to established practice in the PRO area [36]. Taking reasonable effort and benefit into account, this results in a number of cases of n = 200 for the pilot and validation study as a sufficient number for the analyses to be performed.

3.4.2. Recruitment

Recruitment will be implemented by four study nurses in the three recruitment centers of the project’s partners in the German cities of Brandenburg, Greifswald, and Leipzig. The study population will be recruited from patients who are receiving or have received TM care or who are receiving standard treatment for depression or heart failure. The study nurses will contact patients - according to standardized criteria that include type of disease and type of care - with a verbal or written invitation. Patients must suffer from a chronic physical/mental condition or depression/heart failure. Moderate-to-severe impairment of cognitive functions (e.g., comorbid neurological diseases) and non-proficient knowledge of German are exclusion criteria. A research assistant will recruit professionals via email, in person or by phone. Professionals need to be working in the field of TM. All participants had to be at least 18 years old.

3.4.3. Study Assessment and Measures

Qualitative studies: The interviews and focus groups will be conducted by using semi-structured interview guides, which will be published within the respective qualitative article.
Quantitative studies: Primarily for validation purposes, the following standardized established instruments will be used in addition to the item pool of the newly developed Tele-QoL instrument (see Table 2).
Sociodemographic characteristics will be assessed based on the “Demographic Standards”, a joint recommendation of the Arbeitskreis Deutscher Markt- und Sozialforschungsinstitute e.V. (ADM), the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Sozialwissenschaftlicher Institute e.V. (ASI), and the Federal Statistical Office [39]. We will use a slightly adapted form of a single item for assessing the perceived relative health status from a questionnaire by Renner, Hahn, and Schwarzer (1996) [40]. Moreover, we will phrase questions with regard to disease- or health-related information (e.g., “Do you use telemedicine?”).
Technology commitment will be assessed by using the “Brief measure of technology commitment (TB)” (German original version: [41]). Participants rate their agreement to statements regarding their individual attitudes towards modern technology (e.g., “I am often frightened to fail when dealing with modern technology”) on five response options: 1 = “strongly disagree”, 2 = “disagree”, 3 = “undecided”, 4 = “agree”, and 5 = “strongly agree”. Internal consistency of the subscales “technology acceptance” and “technology competence” was excellent (α = 0.84); for the subscale “technology control”, reliability was good (α = 0.74).
The “Goldman Specific Activity Scale” (original version: [42]) will be used to assess heart failure severity. Participants are asked to rate whether they are able to perform specific daily activities (e.g., “shower without stopping”) and based on their answers classified in four Specific Activity Scale Functional Classes (Class I = least burdened; Class IV = most burdened). It is complemented by the “New York Heart Association Classification” (NYHA; original version: [43]; German version: [44]). The participant must choose the most appropriate statement regarding shortness of breath in daily activities (e.g., “I experience shortness of breath in rest”) in order to be classified in four possible classes (NYHA 1 = least burdened; NYHA 4 = most burdened).
Depressive symptoms will be assessed with the “Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9)” [45]. Participants are asked to rate how often they have been bothered by problems over the last 2 weeks (e.g., “Little interest or pleasure in doing things”), with the following response options: 1 = “not at all”, 2 = “several days”, 3 = “more than half the days”, and 4 = “nearly every day”. Internal reliability (α = 0.89) and test–retest reliability after 48 h (r = 0.84) are excellent.
The new “Tele-QoL” measure will be developed for the assessment of QoL in the context of telemedical care (version A) and standard care (version B) as comparator. Participants evaluate statements regarding their telemedical experiences in the previous four weeks (e.g., “Because of the telemedical treatment, I know how to interpret my symptoms”). The following response options are available: 1 = “strongly disagree”, 2 = “disagree”, 3 = “agree”, and 4 = “strongly agree”. Our study is primarily directed at generating initial evidence for the psychometric performance of the Tele-Qol measure.
With the “SeCu-20” questionnaire (German original version: [46]) participants will be asked to evaluate statements regarding their perceived security in experiences with telemedical care in the last four weeks (e.g., “I can rely on the telemedical application in everyday life”). The response options are 1 = “strongly disagree”, 2 = “disagree”, 3 = “agree”, and 4 = “strongly agree”. The internal reliability of the four scales “technology anxiety”, “perceived security”, “physician–patient relation”, and “perceived autonomy” is good to excellent (α = 0.70–0.89).
Patient satisfaction will be assessed by the “Fragebogen zur Messung der Patientenzufriedenheit (ZUF-8)“ (original version: [47]; German version: [48]). Participants answer questions regarding their general satisfaction with the hospital and the received treatment (e.g., “How satisfied are you with the received treatment generally?”) on four varying response options. Internal reliability is excellent (α = 0.92). Additionally, the general item of the “Youth Health Care Measure (YHC-SUN)” [49] is used to assess the general satisfaction with the treatment (“Have you been satisfied with your healthcare provision in general?”). Response options were 1 = “not satisfied”, 2 = “partly satisfied”, 3 = “satisfied”, 4 = “very satisfied”, and 5 = “extremely satisfied”.
With the “Patient Activation Measure (PAM13-D)” (original version: [50]; German version: [51]), patient activation will be assessed. Participants are asked to evaluate their agreement to statements (e.g., “I know the causes of my symptoms”) on four response options: 1 = “strongly disagree”, 2 = “disagree”, 3 = “agree”, and 4 = “agree strongly”. Internal reliability is excellent (α = 0.84).
To assess body-related self-consciousness, the subscale “private” of the “Body-related Self-Consciousness (KSA)” questionnaire (German original version: [52]) will be used. Participants evaluate their agreement to statements (e.g., “I often can feel my heart beating”) on five response options: 1 = “strongly disagree”, 2 = “disagree”, 3 = “neither agree nor disagree”, 4 = “agree”, and 5 = “agree strongly”.
From the “Body-related Locus of Control (KLC)” questionnaire (German original version: [53,54]) for the assessment of body-related locus of control the subscale “health” will be used. Participants are asked to choose the most appropriate response options for statements (e.g., “Who never falls ill is just lucky”) out of five options: 1 = “strongly disagree”, 2 = “disagree”, 3 = “neither agree nor disagree”, 4 = “agree”, and 5 = “agree strongly”. The internal reliability range is between α = 0.76 und α = 0.79.
The “European Health Literacy Survey (HLS-EU-Q6)” (original version in multiple languages: [55]) will be used to assess health literacy. Participants are asked to evaluate how easy or difficult it is for them to perform different tasks related to health information (e.g., “On a scale from very difficult to very easy, how easy would you say it is to find information on how to manage mental health problems like stress or depression?”). Response options are 1 = “very difficult”, 2 = “fairly difficult”, 3 = “fairly easy”, and 4 = “very easy”. Internal reliability is good (α = 0.80).
Correspondingly, we will implement a newly adapted version of HLS-EU-Q6 for digital healthcare, referred to as D-HLS-EU-Q6. This scale is used to assess digital health literacy by asking patients how easy or difficult they would say it is to perform different tasks regarding digital health information (e.g., “On a scale from very difficult to very easy, how easy would you say it is to find information on how to manage mental health problems like stress or depression with the help of digital health applications?”). The same response options as in the HLS-EU-Q6 are used and preliminary estimation of internal reliability is excellent (α = 0.89).
With the ”WHO-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5)” [56,57], the QoL of participants with depression will be assessed. Participants are asked how often they felt the described mood in the last two weeks (e.g., “In the last two weeks I felt calm and relaxed”). The available response options are 1 = “all the time”, 2 = “mostly”, 3 = “a little more than half of the time”, 4 = “a little less than half of the time”, 5 = “occasionally”, and 6 = “at no instant”. Internal reliability is excellent (α = 0.92).
The “Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire (MLHFQ)” will serve for the assessment of the QoL of patients with heart failure [58,59]. Participants rate how often they feel prevented from their wished way of life because of the stated symptoms in the last four weeks. An example question is, “Did your heart failure prevent you from your wished way of life in the last month, whilst you suffered from shortness of breath?” The possible responses are 1 = “very little”; 2, 3, 4, and 5 = “very strong”; and “no” = not applicable. Internal reliability is excellent (α = 0.92; see [60]).
To assess the subjective health status of the participants, the “Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12)” (original version: [61]; German version: [62]) will be used. Participants are asked about their overall health condition and have the following response options: 1 = “excellent”, 2 = “very good”, 3 = “good”, 4 = “not so good”, and 5 = “bad”. Questions include, how much they feel currently restricted in the stated tasks (response options: 1 = “yes, strongly restricted”, 2 = “yes, a little restricted”, and 3 = “no, not restricted at all”), if they experienced the stated problems at work or in daily activities because of their physical condition and because of their mental health in the last four weeks (response options: 1 = “never”, 2 = “seldom”, 3 = “sometimes”, 4 = “usually”, and 5 = “always”), to which extent pains restricted usual work at home or at work in the last four weeks (response options: 1 = “not at all”, 2 = “a bit”, 3 = “moderate”, 4 = “fairly”, and 5 = “very much”), how often they felt the stated emotions in the last four weeks (response options: 1 = “always”, 2 = “usually”, 3 = “quite often”, 4 = “sometimes”, 5 = “seldom”, and 6 = “never”), and how often physical and mental problems restricted the contact to other people in the last four weeks (response options: 1 = “always”, 2 = “usually”, 3 = “sometimes”, 4 = “seldom”, and 5 = “never”).
The health-related QoL will be assessed with the “European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D)” (original version: [63,64]). Participants describe their today’s health regarding mobility, taking care of oneself, daily activities, pain/physical afflictions and anxiety/depressiveness on the response options 1 = “no problems”, 2 = “mild problems”, 3 = “moderate problems”, 4 = “big problems”, and 5 = “not able”. Additionally, they evaluate their current health on a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100.
The short form of the “World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF)” (original version in multiple languages: [65]) will be used to assess the general QoL. Participants evaluate their QoL, life satisfaction, experiences, abilities, satisfaction in different life domains, and negative feelings in the last two weeks on a five-point scale. An example item is “Do you have enough possibilities for leisure activities?” The response phrasing is adapted to the specific type of question. Internal consistency was demonstrated with the following Cronbach’s alpha values: 0.82 in the physical domain, 0.81 in the psychological domain, 0.68 in the social domain, and 0.80 in the environmental domain [65].

3.5. Data Evaluation

3.5.1. Data Collection and Management

A data-protection concept will be prepared for the project, and it will be in line with current regulations. This covers information and consent to the study, data collection, data transport, as well as analysis and storage of the data. Moreover, the University of Greifswald will provide a project server and assign access rights among the members of the research team. The project server will be used for the secure storage of project data. Server usage will be in line with currently valid data-protection laws.
Qualitative data will be recorded with a Dictaphone after all participants have given their written informed consent, and related questions were clarified. After the recording, the audio file will be stored on the project server until a transcript of the interview has been made. The audio file will then be deleted, while the transcript remains stored on the server.
Quantitative data will be collected by using questionnaires. The study material will be prepared by the University of Greifswald and subsequently be sent to the recruiting clinical partner institutions. Participants will be asked to return the completed questionnaire material anonymously to the University of Greifswald, using a pre-stamped envelope. After the questionnaires have been received, they will be entered into an Excel spreadsheet and stored on the project server. The original questionnaires will be filed and stored in locked cabinets in rooms to which only limited people with specific clearance have access.

3.5.2. Data Analyses

Qualitative data: Qualitative data will be transliterated with the software f4 transcript [66] and subsequently analyzed with MAXQDA software [67]. For the coding of the data material, Mayring’s content analysis approach [68] will be used. The analysis and coding of the transcripts will be made by two persons independently (research assistant, student assistant) and refined iteratively. Possibly deviating codings and contradictory interpretations will be discussed with a supervisor (person in charge of methodology) in a consensual procedure. The analysis will be directed towards identifying all text sequences/units that refer to personal experiences in connection with the application of TM and its impact on QoL. From these contents, categories will iteratively be created, or content will be assigned to existing categories. The resulting category system and the structured contents will be the result of the analyses, which are to be generated from the data input of the qualitative studies. A workshop with experts from the fields of TM applications and QoL research will be conducted for the external validation of the results.
Quantitative data: Psychometric analyses on item and scale level, according to classical test theory and item response theory, will be performed after piloting and validation. The piloting will include the selection of an item pool based on the conceptual framework model, the pretesting of the items by cognitive debriefings, the pilot testing of the questionnaire on a sample, and analyses of the descriptive and psychometric performance (e.g., exploratory factor analysis). The validation will include the selection and determination of the final item pool, including scale assignment on the basis of the piloting results and the validation of the measure with an independent sample, as well as analyses of the descriptive and psychometric performance on the item, subscale, and instrument level (e.g., applying confirmatory factor analysis, item response modeling, and differential test functioning).

4. Discussion

This research project is expected to generate the following outcomes:
(i)
Patient-related (re-)conceptualization: The results of the research project address the need for a stronger conceptual elaboration of the construct of QoL in the context of TM applications from the patient’s perspective.
(ii)
Setting-sensitive assessment: The specific items will assess central expectations and experiences of patients (e.g., perceived security and control beliefs) regarding TM applications more sensitively and can be used as integrated or additional modules of QoL assessments. The instrument allows a more appropriate assessment of the impact of TM on QoL due to increased setting sensitivity.
(iii)
Care-relevant evaluation: Such a conceptual framework and a corresponding instrument also provide the basis for (re-)evaluating the effectiveness of TM applications through PROMs/PREMs. This potentially allows a re-evaluation of discrepant and inconsistent findings of existing studies on the influence of PROMs/PREMs in general or TM applications on QoL in particular. As a result, evaluations of the influence of TM applications on QoL are more valid and reliable, which will considerably help to improve the funding situation [69]. In addition, the extended assessment of QoL in TM settings will lead to the improvement of these applications—for example, better care tailored to individual cases. Moreover, the results can provide concrete starting points on how this method can be further developed and adapted for other areas. As such, this project contributes to strengthening participatory parts of health-services research.

5. Limitations of the Project

The anticipated limitations of the study relate to the inclusion of TM applications. Within this project, those TM applications that are used to complement, but not replace, standard care will be included. Moreover, the landscape of TM is diverse and very dynamic. Consequently, despite aiming for broad applicability, the upcoming results of this study may not be fully generalizable for all future TM applications.

6. Conclusions

TM is an important healthcare solution which will continue to become more widespread in the future. The Tele-QoL project aims to add a questionnaire to the field of research, which will enable healthcare professionals, researchers, and stakeholders to assess the impact of TM on QoL more sensitively. This project contributes to advancing telemedical care and to further highlighting the patients’ perspective.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.S. and H.M.; methodology, H.M.; software, S.S.; formal analysis, H.M., K.G.; investigation, K.G., H.M., N.v.d.B., W.H., O.R., M.O., G.S. and S.S.; resources, S.S.; data curation, H.M. and K.G.; writing—original draft preparation, K.G. and H.M.; writing—review and editing, H.M., K.G. and S.S.; visualization, K.G. and H.M.; project administration, K.G., H.M. and S.S.; funding acquisition, S.S., H.M., N.v.d.B., W.H. and M.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Federal Joint Committee, Germany (G-BA innovation fond), grant number 01VSF16027. It was conducted by University of Greifswald, University Medicine Greifswald, Brandenburg City Hospital, and University Medicine Leipzig.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of University Medicine Greifswald (BB 023/18, date: 27 February 2018) and the State Medical Association of Brandenburg (AS466 (bB)/2018, date: 9 April 2018).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Federal Joint Committee for funding the project. In addition, we want to thank Marlene Mühlmann and Marie Bischoff for giving feedback on this paper during preparation and Marie Schulze, who has been involved in drafting the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alvandi, M. Telemedicine and Its Role in Revolutionizing Healthcare Delivery. Am. J. Acc. Care 2017, 5, e1–e5. [Google Scholar]
  2. Williams, O.E.; Elghenzai, S.; Subbe, C.; Wyatt, J.C.; Williams, J. The Use of Telemedicine to Enhance Secondary Care: Some Lessons from the Front Line. Futur. Hosp. J. 2017, 4, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Riva, S.; Mazzocco, K.; Pravettoni, G. Better Outcomes for Cancer Patients Using Telemedicine: Health-Related Quality of Life (HrQoL) and Empowerment. In Tele-Oncology; Gatti, G., Pravettoni, G., Capello, F., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 23–37. [Google Scholar]
  4. Totten, A.M.; Womack, D.M.; Eden, K.B.; McDonagh, M.S.; Griffin, J.C.; Grusing, S.; Hersh, W.R. Telehealth: Mapping the Evidence for Patient Outcomes from Systematic Reviews; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD, USA, 2016.
  5. Damant, J.; Knapp, M.; Freddolino, P.; Lombard, D. Effects of Digital Engagement on the Quality of Life of Older People. Health Soc. Care Community 2017, 25, 1679–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Eurlings, C.G.M.J.; Boyne, J.J.; de Boer, R.A.; Brunner-La Rocca, H.P. Telemedicine in Heart Failure—More than Nice to Have? Netherlands Heart J. 2019, 27, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Faruque, L.I.; Wiebe, N.; Ehteshami-Afshar, A.; Liu, Y.; Dianati-Maleki, N.; Hemmelgarn, B.R.; Manns, B.J.; Tonelli, M. Effect of Telemedicine on Glycated Hemoglobin in Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. CMAJ 2017, 189, E341–E364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Inglis, S.C.; Clark, R.A.; McAlister, F.A.; Stewart, S.; Cleland, J.G.F. Which Components of Heart Failure Programmes Are Effective? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Outcomes of Structured Telephone Support or Telemonitoring as the Primary Component of Chronic Heart Failure Management in 8323 Patients: Abridged Coc. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2011, 13, 1028–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Maric, B.; Kaan, A.; Ignaszewski, A.; Lear, S.A. A Systematic Review of Telemonitoring Technologies in Heart Failure. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2009, 11, 506–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Pandor, A.; Gomersall, T.; Stevens, J.W.; Wang, J.; Al-Mohammad, A.; Bakhai, A.; Cleland, J.G.F.; Cowie, M.R.; Wong, R. Remote Monitoring after Recent Hospital Discharge in Patients with Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Heart 2013, 99, 1717–1726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pang, L.; Liu, Z.; Lin, S.; Liu, Z.; Liu, H.; Mai, Z.; Liu, Z.; Chen, C.; Zhao, Q. The Effects of Telemedicine on the Quality of Life of Patients with Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Ther. Adv. Chronic Dis. 2020, 11, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Schmidt, S. Telemedicine and Quality of Life. Dtsch. Med. Wochenschr. 2007, 132, 442–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Muehlan, H.; Schmidt, S. Telemonitoring und Lebensqualität. In Telemedizinische Methoden in der Patientenversorgung: Anwendungsspektrum, Chancen, Risiken; Bartmann, F.-J., Blettner, M., Heuschmann, P.U., Eds.; Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag: Köln, Germany, 2012; pp. 95–106. [Google Scholar]
  14. Muehlan, H.; Schmidt, S. Versorgungsbezogene E-Health-Anwendungen Und Lebensqualität: Empirische Befunde Und Konzeptuelle Perspektiven. Psychiatr. Prax. 2013, 40, 307–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Oeff, M.; Kotsch, P.; Gößwald, A.; Wolf, U. Überwachung Multipler Herzkreislaufparameter Mittels Telemonitoring Bei Patienten Mit Chronischer Herzinsuffizienz. Herzschrittmacherther. Elektrophysiol. 2005, 16, 150–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ritter, O.; Bauer, W.R. Use of “IEGM Online” in ICD Patients—Early Detection of Inappropriate Classified Ventricular Tachycardia via Home Monitoring. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 2006, 95, 368–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kidholm, K.; Clemensen, J.; Caffery, L.J.; Smith, A.C. The Model for Assessment of Telemedicine (MAST): A Scoping Review of Empirical Studies. J. Telemed. Telecare 2017, 23, 803–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Langbecker, D.; Caffery, L.J.; Gillespie, N.; Smith, A.C. Using Survey Methods in Telehealth Research: A Practical Guide. J. Telemed. Telecare 2017, 23, 770–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Johnson, S.E.; Fedor, M.A.; Hoban, M.B. Telemonitoring: A Positive Impact on Patient Outcomes. Caring 2008, 27, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  20. World Health Organisation. World Health Statistics 2020: Monitoring Health for the SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals; World Health Organisation: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  21. Fendrich, K.; Hoffmann, W. More than Just Aging Societies: The Demographic Change Has an Impact on Actual Numbers of Patients. J. Public Health 2007, 15, 345–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kopetsch, T. Studie Zur Altersstruktur- Und Arztzahlentwicklung: Dem Deutschen Gesundheitswesen Gehen Die Ärzte Aus! 5. Auflage; Bundesärztekammer und Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung: Berlin, Germany, 2010; ISBN 9783000309571. [Google Scholar]
  23. Siewert, U.; Fendrich, K.; Doblhammer-Reiter, G.; Scholz, R.D.; Schuff-Werner, P.; Hoffmann, W. Versorgungsepidemiologische Auswirkungen Des Demografischen Wandels in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern: Hochrechnung Der Fallzahlen Altersassoziierter Erkrankungen Bis 2020 Auf Der Basis Der Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP). Dtsch. Arztebl. 2010, 107, 328–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. van den Berg, N.; Schmidt, S.; Stentzel, U.; Mühlan, H.; Hoffmann, W. Telemedizinische Versorgungskonzepte in Der Regionalen Versorgung Ländlicher Gebiete: Möglichkeiten, Einschränkungen, Perspektiven. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforsch. Gesundh. 2015, 58, 367–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Muehlan, H.; Schmidt, S. Psycho-Social Aspects of Personal Health Monitoring: A Descriptive Literature Review. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2013, 187, 41–53. [Google Scholar]
  26. Schmidt, S.; Rienhoff, O. Ethical and Legal Aspects of Personal Health Monitoring; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  27. Maresova, P.; Javanmardi, E.; Barakovic, S.; Barakovic Husic, J.; Tomsone, S.; Krejcar, O.; Kuca, K. Consequences of Chronic Diseases and Other Limitations Associated with Old Age—A Scoping Review. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Megari, K. Quality of Life in Chronic Disease Patients. Health Psychol. Res. 2013, 1, e27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lasch, K.E.; Marquis, P.; Vigneux, M.; Abetz, L.; Arnould, B.; Bayliss, M.; Crawford, B.; Rosa, K. PRO Development: Rigorous Qualitative Research as the Crucial Foundation. Qual. Life Res. 2010, 19, 1087–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Krueger, R.A.; Casey, M.A. Participants in a Focus Groups. In Focus Groups. A Practical Guide for Applied Research; Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014; pp. 77–102. ISBN 9781483365244. [Google Scholar]
  31. Saunders, B.; Sim, J.; Kingstone, T.; Baker, S.; Waterfield, J.; Bartlam, B.; Burroughs, H.; Jinks, C. Saturation in Qualitative Research: Exploring Its Conceptualization and Operationalization. Qual. Quant. 2018, 52, 1893–1907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Vasileiou, K.; Barnett, J.; Thorpe, S.; Young, T. Characterising and Justifying Sample Size Sufficiency in Interview-Based Studies: Systematic Analysis of Qualitative Health Research over a 15-Year Period. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2018, 18, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Perneger, T.V.; Courvoisier, D.S.; Hudelson, P.M.; Gayet-Ageron, A. Sample Size for Pre-Tests of Questionnaires. Qual. Life Res. 2015, 24, 147–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Costello, A.B.; Osborne, J.W. Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting the Most from Your Analysis. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2005, 10, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  35. Osborne, J. Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis; CreateSpace: Scotts Valley, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  36. Anthoine, E.; Moret, L.; Regnault, A.; Sbille, V.; Hardouin, J.B. Sample Size Used to Validate a Scale: A Review of Publications on Newly-Developed Patient Reported Outcomes Measures. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2014, 12, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Hogarty, K.Y.; Hines, C.V.; Kromrey, J.D.; Ferron, J.M.; Mumford, K.R. The Quality of Factor Solutions in Exploratory Factor Analysis: The Influence of Sample Size, Communality, and Overdetermination. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2005, 65, 202–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wolf, E.J.; Harrington, K.M.; Clark, S.L.; Miller, M.W. Sample Size Requirements for Structural Equation Models: An Evaluation of Power, Bias, and Solution Propriety. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2013, 73, 913–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Beckmann, K.; Glemser, A.; Heckel, C.; Al:, E. Demographische Standards; 6. Auflage; Federal Statistical Office: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2016; ISBN 9783824609031.
  40. Renner, B.; Hahn, A.; Schwarzer, R. Risiko und Gesundheitsverhalten; Dokumentation der Messinstrumente des Forschungsprojekts „Berlin Risk Appraisal and Health Motivation Study“ (BRAHMS); Freie Universität Berlin: Berlin, Germany, 1996; ISBN 3-00-000631-1. [Google Scholar]
  41. Neyer, F.J.; Felber, J.; Gebhardt, C. Entwicklung und Validierung einer Kurzskala zur Erfassung von Technikbereitschaft. Diagnostica 2012, 58, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Goldman, L.; Hashimoto, B.; Cook, E.F.; Loscalzo, A. Comparative Reproducibility and Validity of Systems for Assessing Cardiovascular Functional Class: Advantages of a New Specific Activity Scale. Circulation 1981, 64, 1227–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. The Criteria Committee of the New York Heart Association. Nomenclature and Criteria for Diagnosis of Diseases of the Heart and Great Vessels, 9th ed.; Little Brown & Co, Ed.; American Heart Association: Dallas, TX, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hoppe, U.C.; Böhm, M.; Dietz, R.; Hanrath, P.; Kroemer, H.K.; Osterspey, A.; Schmaltz, A.A.; Erdmann, E. Leitlinien Zur Therapie Der Chronischen Herzinsuffizienz. Z. Kardiol. 2005, 94, 488–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Kroenke, K.; Spitzer, R.L.; Williams, J.B.W.; Löwe, B. The Patient Health Questionnaire Somatic, Anxiety, and Depressive Symptom Scales: A Systematic Review. Gen. Hosp. Psychiatry 2010, 32, 345–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Karg, O.; Weber, M.; Bubulj, C.; Esche, B.; Weber, N.; Geiseler, J.; Bachl, C.; Schellhorn, H. Akzeptanz einer telemedizinischen Intervention bei Patienten mit chronisch-obstruktiver Lungenerkrankung TT—Acceptance of a telemonitoring device in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Dtsch Med. Wochenschr. 2012, 137, 574–579. [Google Scholar]
  47. Attkisson, C.C.; Zwick, R. The Client Satisfaction Questionnaire: Psychometric Properties and Correlations with Service Utilization and Psychotherapy Outcome. Eval. Program Plann. 1982, 5, 233–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Schmidt, J.; Lamprecht, F.; Wittmann, W.W. Zufriedenheit Mit Der Stationären Versorgung. Entwicklung Eines Fragebogens Und Erste Validitätsuntersuchungen. Psychother. Psychosom. Medizinische Psychol. 1989, 39, 248–255. [Google Scholar]
  49. Schmidt, S.; Thyen, U.; Herrmann-Garitz, C.; Bomba, F.; Muehlan, H. The Youth Health Care Measure-Satisfaction, Utilization, and Needs (YHC-SUN)-Development of a Self-Report Version of the Child Health Care (CHC-SUN) Proxy-Measure. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2016, 16, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Hibbard, J.H.; Mahoney, E.R.; Stockard, J.; Tusler, M. Development and Testing of a Short Form of the Patient Activation Measure. Health Serv. Res. 2005, 40, 1918–1930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Brenk-Franz, K.; Hibbard, J.H.; Herrmann, W.J.; Freund, T.; Szecsenyi, J.; Djalali, S.; Steurer-Stey, C.; Sönnichsen, A.; Tiesler, F.; Storch, M.; et al. Validation of the German Version of the Patient Activation Measure 13 (PAM13-D) in an International Multicentre Study of Primary Care Patients. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e74786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bohner, G.; Harlacher, U.; Rudolf, C.; Sieger, H.; Schwarz, N. Selbstaufmerksamkeit und Körperaufmerksamkeit. In Bericht über den 33. Kongreß der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie in Mainz 1982; Lüer, G., Ed.; Hogrefe: Göttingen, Germany, 1982; pp. 649–652. [Google Scholar]
  53. Mrazek, J. Die Erfassung körperbezogener Kontrollüberzeugungen. In Diagnostik von Attributionen und Kontrollüberzeugungen; Krampen, G., Ed.; Hogrefe: Göttingen, Germany, 1989; pp. 112–118. [Google Scholar]
  54. Albani, C.; Blaser, G.; Geyer, M.; Schmutzer, G.; Hinz, A.; Bailer, H.; Grulke, N.; Brähler, E. Psychometrische Überprüfung Und Normierung Des Fragebogens Körperbezogener Locus of Control (KLC) an Einer Repräsentativen Deutschen Bevölkerungsstichprobe. Z. Med. Psychol. 2007, 16, 83–91. [Google Scholar]
  55. Pelikan, J.M.; Ganahl, K. Measuring Health Literacy in General Populations: Primary Findings from the HLS-EU Consortium’s Health Literacy Assessment Effort. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2017, 240, 34–59. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  56. Brähler, E.; Mühlan, H.; Albani, C.; Schmidt, S. Teststatistische Prüfung Und Normierung Der Deutschen Versionen Des EUROHIS-QOL Lebensqualität-Index Und Des WHO-5 Wohlbefindens-Index. Diagnostica 2007, 53, 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Topp, C.W.; Østergaard, S.D.; Søndergaard, S.; Bech, P. The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Psychother. Psychosom. 2015, 84, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Quittan, M.; Wiesinger, G.F.; Crevenna, R.; Nuhr, M.J.; Posch, M.; Hülsmann, M.; Müller, D.; Pacher, R.; Fialka-Moser, V. Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire for German-Speaking Patients. J. Rehabil. Med. 2001, 33, 182–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Rector, T.S.; Cohn, J.N. Assessment of Patient Outcome with the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire: Reliability and Validity during a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Pimobendan. Am. Heart J. 1992, 124, 1017–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Garin, O.; Ferrer, M.; Pont, A.; Wiklund, I.; Ganse, E.; Vilagut, G.; Almansa, J.; Ribera, A.; Alonso, J. Evidence on the Global Measurement Model of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire. Qual. Life Res. 2013, 22, 2675–2684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Jones, D.; Kazis, L.; Lee, A.; Rogers, W.; Skinner, K.; Cassar, L.; Wilson, N.; Hendricks, A. Health Status Assessments Using the Veterans SF-12 and SF-36: Methods for Evaluating Outcomes in the Veterans Health Administration. J. Ambul. Care Manag. 2001, 24, 68–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Buchholz, I.; Feng, Y.-S.; Buchholz, M.; Kazis, L.E.; Kohlmann, T. The German Version of the Veterans Rand—36/12 Item Health Survey: Translation and Adaptation of a Generic Health Assessment Instrument in a Sample of Inpatient Rehabilitation Patients. Available online: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-98587/v1 (accessed on 3 October 2021).
  63. Devlin, N.J.; Brooks, R. EQ-5D and the EuroQol Group: Past, Present and Future. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2017, 15, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Herdman, M.; Gudex, C.; Lloyd, A.; Janssen, M.; Kind, P.; Parkin, D.; Bonsel, G.; Badia, X. Development and Preliminary Testing of the New Five-Level Version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual. Life Res. 2011, 20, 1727–1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Skevington, S.M.; Sartorius, N.; Amir, M.; Sartorius, N.; Orley, J.; Kuyken, W.; Power, M.; Herrman, H.; Schofield, H.; Murphy, B.; et al. Developing Methods for Assessing Quality of Life in Different Cultural Settings—The History of the WHOQOL Instruments. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2004, 39, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. dr. Dresing & pehl GmbH F4transkript 2019. Available online: https://www.audiotranskription.de/f4transkript/ (accessed on 3 October 2021).
  67. VERBI Software MAXQDA—Software for Qualitative Data Analyses; VERBI Software: Berlin, Germany, 2017.
  68. Mayring, P. Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution (Free Download via Social Science Open Access Repository SSOAR); GESIS: Mannheim, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  69. Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices. The Fast-Track Process for Digital Health Applications (DiGA) According to Section 139e SGB V; Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices: Bonn, Germany, 2019; pp. 1–124.
Table
Table 1. Sample sizes per study section.
Table 1. Sample sizes per study section.
Project TaskPatientsProfessionals
Interviews for
concept elicitation		n = 32 patients in totaln = 30 professionals
with TM experience
n = 16 patients with chronic diseases
(8 each with or without TM care)
n = 16 patients with mental disorders
(8 each with or without TM care)
Focus groups for concept elicitationn = 32 patients in totaln = 30 professionals
with TM experience
(natural working groups/teams
of variable size)
n = 16 patients with chronic diseases
(8 each with or without TM care)
n = 16 patients with mental disorders
(8 each with or without TM care)
Workshop for expert validation of
conceptual model		 Expert workshop
(at least n = 5)
Pretesting of item poolCognitive debriefings n = 32Online-Survey for Expert-Ratings
(at least n = 10)
Piloting of
preliminary
instrument		n = 200 total patients
n = 100 patients with depression
(50 each with or without TM care)
n = 100 patients with heart failure
(50 each with or without TM care)
Validation of final
instrument		n = 200 total patients
n = 100 patients with depression
(50 each with or without TM care)
n = 100 patients with heart failure
(50 each with or without TM care)
Table
Table 2. Questionnaires and items employed at the different study assessments.
Table 2. Questionnaires and items employed at the different study assessments.
Study Assessments and MeasuresNumber of ItemsStudy Time Points
Pilot StudyValidation Study (I)Validation Study (II)
General information
  • Sociodemographic characteristics
7XX
  • Perceived relative health status
1XXX
  • Disease- and health-related information
8XXX
Psychological instruments
  • Technology commitment (TB)
12 X
  • Heart failure severity (Goldman scale & NYHA)
6 XX
  • Depressive symptoms (PHQ-9)
10XXX
  • Quality of life in the context of telemedical care (Tele-QoL-A)
?XXX
  • Quality of life in the context of standard care (Tele-QoL-B)
?XXX
  • Perceived security in telemedicine (SeCu-20)
20XXX
  • Patient satisfaction (ZUF-8)
8XX
  • Healthcare satisfaction—general item (YHC-SUN)
1 X
  • Patient activation (PAM13-D)
13 X
  • Body-related self-consciousness—subscale “private” (KSA)
6 X
  • Body-related locus of control—subscale “health” (KLC)
5 X
  • Health literacy (HLS-6)
6 XX
  • Digital health literacy (D-HLS-6)
6 XX
  • Disease-specific quality of life—Depression (WHO-5)
5 XX
  • Disease-specific quality of life—Heart failure (MLHFQ)
21XXX
  • Health status (VR-12)
12XXX
  • Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D)
6 X
  • General quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF)
26XX
The selection of questionnaires within a study phase further depends on the group to which the patient belongs (heart failure or depression, with or without telemedical treatment).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Greffin, K.; Muehlan, H.; van den Berg, N.; Hoffmann, W.; Ritter, O.; Oeff, M.; Schomerus, G.; Schmidt, S. Setting-Sensitive Conceptualization and Assessment of Quality of Life in Telemedical Care—Study Protocol of the Tele-QoL Project. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10454. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910454

AMA Style

Greffin K, Muehlan H, van den Berg N, Hoffmann W, Ritter O, Oeff M, Schomerus G, Schmidt S. Setting-Sensitive Conceptualization and Assessment of Quality of Life in Telemedical Care—Study Protocol of the Tele-QoL Project. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(19):10454. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910454

Chicago/Turabian Style

Greffin, Klara, Holger Muehlan, Neeltje van den Berg, Wolfgang Hoffmann, Oliver Ritter, Michael Oeff, Georg Schomerus, and Silke Schmidt. 2021. "Setting-Sensitive Conceptualization and Assessment of Quality of Life in Telemedical Care—Study Protocol of the Tele-QoL Project" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 19: 10454. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910454

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop