An exploration of the pilot implementation of an online symptom monitoring diary to support people living with \ncystic fibrosis self-manage their condition
Year: 2013
Type: dissertation
Abstract: This \nthesis \nexplores \nthe \npilot \nimplementation \nof \nan \nonline \nsymptom \nmonitoring \ndiary \n(myCF \npilot \nimplementation) \ndeveloped \nto \nsupport \npeople \nliving \nwith \ncystic \nfibrosis \n(CF) \nthrough \nsymptom \nmonitoring. \nThe \nresearch \nwas \nconducted \nwithin \na \nbroader \nstudy, \nthe \nmyCF \nproject, \nthat \nwas \nimplementing \nan \nonline \nsymptom \nmonitoring \ndiary \nin \nTasmania. \nThe \nmyCF \npilot \nimplementation \nwas \ndesigned \nin \nconjunction \nwith \nhealth \ncare \npractitioners \nwith \nthe \nintention \nof \nincreasing \nthe \npatient's \nsymptom \nawareness \nand \nin \nturn \ntheir \nCF \nself-‐ \nmanagement. \nThis \nthesis \npresents \nfindings \non \nhow \nthe \nmyCF \npilot \nimplementation \nwas \nincorporated \ninto \nthe \ndaily \nlives \nof \npeople \nliving \nwith \nCF \nand \nhow \nthe \nmyCF \npilot \nimplementation \ninfluenced \npeople’s \nability \nto \nself-‐manage. \nMore \nbroadly, \nguided \nby \nthe \nuse \nof \nNormalisation \nProcess \nTheory, \nthis \nthesis \ncontributes \nto \nimproving \nunderstanding \nof \nthe \nsocio-‐technical \nfactors \nand \nprocesses \nthat \narise \nduring \nthe \nintegration \nof \nonline \nsymptom \nmonitoring \nwith \nsupporting \nchronic \ndisease \nself-‐management. \nICT \ntools \nhave \nbeen \nproposed \nas \na \nmechanism \nto \ncontribute \nto \nimproving \npeople’s \nself-‐ \nefficacy \nfor \nmanaging \ntheir \ncondition, \nwhich \nin \nturn \nlead \nto \nimproved \nhealth \noutcomes \n(Cummings \net \nal., \n2010, \nEkberg \net \nal., \n2010). \nThere \nis \na \nneed \nfor \nmore \nqualitative \nresearch \nto \nunderstand \nthe \nrequirements \nfor \nICT \nself-‐management \ntools \n(Ahern, \n2007) \nand \nto \nimprove \nthe \nefficacy \nof \nthese \ntools \n(Gomez \nand \nPather, \n2012, \nCummings, \n2008). \nThis \nresearch \nexplores \nthe \npotential \nlink \nbetween \nself-‐management \ntool \nefficacy \nand \ndeveloping \nself-‐ \nmanagement \n‘knowledge’. \nICT \ntools \nthat \nare \nspecifically \ndesigned \nto \nsupport \nindividuals \nin \nsymptom \nmonitoring \nare \nstill \nin \ntheir \ninfancy \nand \nthere \nis \nminimal \nevidence \nof \nthe \nimplementation \nof \nsuch \ntools \n(Gaikwad \nand \nWarren, \n2009, \nNijland \net \nal., \n2008, \nSolomon, \n2008). \nCurrently \nmost \nself-‐management \ntools \ninclude \na \nmonitoring \ncomponent \nwith \nreporting \nback \nto \nhealth \ncare \nprofessionals \nfor \ndecision \nmaking \non \nthe \nmanagement \nof \nthe \npatient’s \ncondition \n(Hardiker \net \nal., \n2013, \nMcDermott \nand \nWhile, \n2013). \nThe \nmonitoring \nof \nsymptom \ndata \nby \nhealth \ncare \nprofessionals \ncontradicts \nthe \nfoundations \nof \nself-‐management, \naligning \nthe \nself-‐management \ntool \nto \na \ncompliance \nmodel. \nCF \nhas \nbeen \nidentified \nas \na \nchronic \ncondition \nwhere \npatients \ncould \npotentially \nbenefit \nfrom \nICT \nsupported \nself-‐ \nmanagement. \nCF \nis \none \nof \nthe \nmost \ncommon \nlife-‐threatening \ngenetic \ndiseases, \nTasmania \nhas \na \nhigh \nincidence \nof \nCF \nand \nmuch \nof \nthe \nCF \npopulation \nis \ngeographically \ndispersed \nand \nsocially \nisolated. \nThis \nthesis \ncontributes \nto \nthe \ncurrent \nsubstantive \nand \nconceptual \nknowledge \nto \nthe \nfield \nof \ninformation \nsystems \nby \npresenting \nfindings \non \nthe \ninteractions \nbetween \nthe \nonline \nsymptom \nmonitoring \ndiary \nand \nCF \nin \nTasmania. \nThe \nresearch \nmethodology \nemployed \na \nqualitative \napproach \nthat \nwas \nunderpinned \nby \na \nsubjective \nontology \nand \nan \ninterpretative \nepistemology. \nThe \nresearch \nstrategy \nconsisted \nof \na \ncase \nstudy \nand \na \nthree-‐stage \ndata \ncollection \nover \n6 \nmonths. \nThree \ngroups \nof \nparticipants \nwere \ninvolved \nin \nthis \nresearch, \nfor \nall \nthree \nstages. \nThese \ngroups \nare: \n1. \nChildren \n(0-‐10 \nyears) \nand \na \nparent; \n2. \nTeenagers \n(11 \nto \n17 \nyears) \nwith \nCF, \na \nparent \nmay \nhave \nbeen \nincluded; \nand \n3. \nAdults \n(18 \nyears \nplus) \nwith \nCF. \nThe \nresearch \ndesign \nconsisted \nof \nthree \nresearch \nstages: \nStage \none \nexplored \nparticipants’ \nexpectations \nand \nthe \ninitial \nintroduction \nto \nthe \nmyCF \npilot \nimplementation \nby \nconducting \nsemi-‐structured \ninterviews, \nobservations, \nand \nfield \nnotes. \nStage \ntwo \nexplored \nthe \nparticipants’ \nexperiences \nof \nthe \nmyCF \npilot \nimplementation \nand \nutilised \nsemi-‐structured \ninterviews, \nobservations, \nfield \nnotes \nand \nweb-‐logs. \nStage \nthree \nused \nunstructured \ninterviews \nto \ndevelop \nindividual \ncase \nstudies \nand \nadditionally \nused \ndata \ncollected \nfrom \nthe \nfirst \ntwo \nresearch \nstages. \nData \nwas \nanalysed \nwith \nan \ninductive \nthematic \napproach \nthat \ndeveloped \nabstracted \nthemes, \nwhich \ngenerated \ninsight \nand \ndiscussion \nfrom \nthree \ndifferent \nlenses \nfor \nthis \nresearch; \nthe \nresearch \nstages, \nthe \nindividual \ncases, \nand \nat \na \nholistic \nlevel. \nThe \nthemes \nwere \ninterpreted \nto \ngain \ninsights \nfor \neach \nresearch \nstage, \nresulting \nin \nthe \ndevelopment \nof \ninitial \nfindings. \nConcept \nmaps \nwere \nused \nto \nidentify \nclusters \nof \nthe \ninitial \nfindings \nand \nto \nenhance \nthe \ninterpretation \nof \nthe \ninitial \nfindings \nfrom \nall \nthree \nstages \nof \nthe \nresearch. \nThe \ninterpretation \nprocess \nresulted \nin \nresearch \nfindings \nthat \nrepresented \nboth \nindividual \nand \ngroup \nexperiences. \nFurther \ninterpretation \nof \nthe \nresearch \nfindings, \nassisted \nby \nthe \nuse \nof \nNormalisation \nProcess \nTheory, \nanswered \nthe \nresearch \nquestions \nand \nresearch \nobjectives, \nproducing \nthe \nfinal \nfour \nkey \nfindings. \nIn \norder \nto \nunderstand \nin \ndetail \nthe \nattitudes, \ninsights, \nperceptions, \nand \nindividual \nCF \nattributes \nover \ntimes \nas \nthey \ninteract \nwith \nthe \nmyCF \npilot \nimplementation, \na \nqualitative \napproach \nwas \nadopted. \nThe \nkey \nfindings \nfor \nthe \nresearch \nare \nas \nfollows: \no KF1: \nWithout \na \ntransition \nfrom \nself-‐management \n‘understanding’ \nto \nself-‐management \n‘knowledge’ \nit \nis \nnot \npossible \nfor \nan \nonline \nsymptom \nmonitoring \ndiary \nto \nprovide \nself-‐management \nsupport. \no KF2: \nSymptom \nmonitoring \nis \na \nbackground \nactivity \nfor \nthose \nwith \nCF, \nand \na \nfocused \nactivity \nfor \nthose \nwho \ncare \nfor \npeople \nwith \nCF. \no KF3: \nEvaluation \nmethods \nthat \nfocus \non \nuse \nof \nelectronic \ntools \nfor \nself-‐management \nsupport \nare \nnot \nable \nto \nholistically \ncapture \nall
Source: UTAS Research Repository
Author: Roehrer, E
Language: English
Subfield: General Health Professions
Field: Health Professions
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W7046978531