Opening the digital front door for individuals using long-term in-home ventilation (LIVE) during a pandemic- implementation, feasibility and acceptability

Reshma Amin; Adam M Qazi; Munazzah Ambreen; Naqvi Naushad; Regina Pizzuti; Francine Buchanan; Andrea Gershon; Louise Rose; TtLIVE Group

doi:10.1177/20552076231213447

Opening the digital front door for individuals using long-term in-home ventilation (LIVE) during a pandemic- implementation, feasibility and acceptability

Digit Health. 2023 Nov 7:9:20552076231213447. doi: 10.1177/20552076231213447. eCollection 2023 Jan-Dec.

Authors

Reshma Amin^{1

2}, Adam M Qazi¹, Munazzah Ambreen³, Naqvi Naushad¹, Regina Pizzuti⁴, Francine Buchanan⁵, Andrea Gershon⁶, Louise Rose⁷; TtLIVE Group

Affiliations

¹ Division of Respiratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
² University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
³ The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
⁴ Ventilator Equipment Pool, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
⁵ Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
⁶ Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
⁷ Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to an unprecedented need for virtual healthcare that was safe, acceptable and feasible to deliver. In May 2020, we launched the Long-term In-Home Ventilator Engagement (LIVE) program for ventilator assisted individuals using ventilators hosted on an e-platform in Ontario, Canada.

Objectives: To assess the acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility and usability of the LIVE program reported by patients, family caregivers, and healthcare providers (HCP).

Design and methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study. We provided HCPs participating in the LIVE program anonymized questionnaires (Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM), and mHealth App Usability (MAUQ). Patients and family caregivers completed the AIM and MAUQ. Questionnaires were administered via an e-platform.

Results: We recruited 105/251 (42%) patients and family caregivers and 42/48 (87.5%) HCPs. Patients and caregivers rated a mean (SD) overall AIM score of 4.3 (0.7) (maximum score 5; higher scores indicate greater acceptability) and a mean (SD) overall MAUQ score of 5.8 (1.5) (maximum score 7; higher scores indicate greater useability). HCPs rated a mean (SD) overall AIM score of 4.3 (0.7), IAM score of 4.3 (0.8), FIM score of 4.2 (0.7) and overall MAUQ score of 5.6 ± 1.5. There were no differences in AIM ((4.3 (0.7) vs 4.3 (0.8), p = 1) or MAUQ (5.8 (1.5) vs 5.6 (1.5), p = 0.5) scores between patients/ family caregivers and HCPs.

Interpretation: This study suggests that the LIVE program was acceptable, appropriate, feasible, and usable from the perspective of patients, family caregivers and HCPs.

Keywords: Respiratory; apps; digital health; paediatrics; pulmonary.