ArticleJournal of medical systems2016
Utility of a mHealth App for Self-Management and Education of Cardiac Diseases in Spanish Urban and Rural Areas.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Learning and Use of eHealth Among Older Adults Living at Home in Rural and Nonrural Settings: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- Acceptability, feasibility, and impact of the MyGut digital health platform in the monitoring and management of inflammatory bowel disease.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Methods and Measures Used to Evaluate Patient-Operated Mobile Health Interventions: Scoping Literature Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Reviewing Mobile Apps to Control Heart Rate in Literature and Virtual Stores.Journal of medical systems · 2019Review
- Modeling Medical Services with Mobile Health Applications.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2018Article
- Review
- A systematic review of user-based usability testing practices in self-care mHealth apps.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Analyze the utility of a mobile health app named HeartKeeper in several groups of population and obtain conclusions to be applied to other similar apps. A questionnaire has been designed to evaluate the usage and utility of the HeartKeeper app. The questionnaire information was collected by collaborating cardiologists from 32 patients before and after they used the app. Patients were randomly selected with established quotas within interest groups, so that men and women, patients older or younger than 60 years old and patients living in urban or rural areas were equally represented. Using the appropriate statistical techniques we see that the HeartKeeper app was useful for patients as they qualify with 70 points (out of 100) the overall opinion of the app, it helps them remember more easily taking their pills with a mean improvement of 20.94 points (p < 0.001) and they perceive a global improvement of their health (8.28 points, p < 0.001). We also observe that these improvements do not depend, in general, on the area (urban or rural) where the patient comes from or on their sex. Although older patients needed more help to use the app and used it slightly less frequently, the improvements on several measures considered, such as remembering taking pills, breathing problems or trouble developing activities, depend significantly (p < 0.05) on age with older patients reporting higher improvements than younger ones. The results obtained with the sample of patients considered in this research prove the utility of the HeartKeeper app. This utility is similar in urban and rural areas and for patients of both sexes and, to some extent, depends on the age of the patient with older patients reporting slightly lower frequency of use but higher health improvements than younger ones.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27329050What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.