Digital Health Technologies Enabling Partnerships in Chronic Care Management: A Scoping Review (Preprint)

BACKGROUND An increasing number of patients expect and want to play greater roles in decisions about their treatment and care. This emphasizes the need to adopt collaborative healthcare practices, which implies collaboration between an interprofessional healthcare team and patients, their families, caregivers, and communities. In recent years, digital health technologies supporting self-care and collaboration between the community and healthcare providers (i.e., participatory health technologies) have received increasing attention. However, knowledge is still limited regarding the features of such technologies that support effective patient–professional partnerships. OBJECTIVE To map and assess published studies on participatory health technologies intended to support partnerships between patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals in chronic care, focusing specifically on identifying the main features of these technologies. METHODS A scoping review was performed, covering scientific publications in English between January 2008 and December 2020. We searched PubMed and Web of Science. Peer-reviewed qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies that evaluated digital health technologies for patient–professional partnerships in chronic care settings were included. Data were charted and analyzed thematically. The PRISMA-ScR checklist was used. RESULTS The review encompassed 34 papers. The topic of PHTs experienced a slightly increasing trend across the publication years, with most papers originating from the USA and Norway. Cardiovascular diseases and diabetes were the most common conditions addressed. Nine studies evaluated the PHTs’ influences on partnerships, mostly with positive outcomes, although we also identified how partnership relationships and the nature of collaborative work could be challenged when roles and expectations between users were unclear. Six common PHT features were identified: patient–professional communication, self-monitoring, tailored self-care support, self-care education, care planning, and community forums for peer-to-peer interactions. CONCLUSIONS Our findings emphasize the importance of clarifying mutual expectations and carefully considering the implications the introduction of PHTs may have on the work of patients and healthcare professionals, individually and in collaboration. A knowledge gap remains regarding how to use PHTs to support patient–professional partnerships effectively in chronic care management. CLINICALTRIAL