Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Digit. Health
Sec. Health Communications and Behavior Change
Volume 7 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2025.1499333

Integrating general practitioners' and patients' perspectives in the development of a digital tool supporting primary care for older patients with multimorbidity: a focus group study

Provisionally accepted
Ingmar Schäfer Ingmar Schäfer *Vivienne Jahns Vivienne Jahns Valentina Paucke Valentina Paucke Dagmar Lühmann Dagmar Lühmann Martin Scherer Martin Scherer Julia Nothacker Julia Nothacker
  • University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Introduction: The web application gp-multitool.de is based on the German clinical practice guideline “multimorbidity” and supports mutual prioritisation of treatments by GPs (general practitioners) and patients. The application facilitates sending hyperlinks to standardized assessments by email, which can be completed by patients on any suitable digital device. GPs can document clinical decisions. The tool also supports a structured medication review. Aims of this study were to consider needs and wants of the target groups in implementing the guideline in a digital tool, and to identify which aspects were considered most important for customising a digital tool. Materials and methods: We conducted six focus groups with 32 GPs and six focus groups with 33 patients. Eight groups were conducted alongside the programming of the web application and four after finishing a prototype. GPs were recruited by mail and asked to invite up to six eligible patients from their practice to participate. Focus groups were based on semi-structured interview guides and discussed assessments, functionalities, usability and reliability of gp-multitool.de. Discussions were transcribed verbatim and analysed using content analysis. Results: GPs wanted to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming functions and did not want to explore problems that they could not provide solutions for. For some assessments, GPs suggested simplifying scales or including residual categories. GPs and patients also addressed possible misunderstandings due to wording and discussed if some items might be too intimate or overtax patients intellectually. In most cases, participants confirmed usability, but they suggested changes in default settings and pointed out a few minor bugs that needed to be fixed. While some GPs considered data security an important topic, most patients were unconcerned with this issue and open to share their data. Conclusion: Our study indicates that focus groups can be used to customize digital tools according to needs and wants of target groups and thus, improve their content, functionality, usability, and reliability. However, digital tools still need to be piloted and evaluated in everyday care. Study participants confirmed that gp-multitool.de can be a relevant approach for overcoming deficits in the information needed for mutual prioritisation of treatments by GPs and patients.

    Keywords: multimorbidity, chronic diseases, shared decision making, Digitalisation, Clinical Practice Guidelines

    Received: 20 Sep 2024; Accepted: 08 Jan 2025.

    Copyright: © 2025 Schäfer, Jahns, Paucke, Lühmann, Scherer and Nothacker. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Ingmar Schäfer, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.