Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28179215›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2017

Mixed-Methods Analysis of Factors Impacting Use of a Postoperative mHealth App.

Aaron R Scott, Elizabeth A Alore, Aanand D Naik, David H Berger, James W Suliburk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Aaron R ScottMichael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1210-3731
Elizabeth A AloreMichael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6045-7147
Aanand D NaikCenter for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Health Services Research and Development Center of Innovation, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6936-7984
David H BergerMichael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9529-7091
James W SuliburkMichael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6421-269X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLimited communication and care coordination following discharge from hospitals may contribute to surgical complications. Smartphone apps offer a novel mechanism for communication and care coordination. However, factors which may affect patient app use in a postoperative, at-home setting are poorly understood.

objectiveThe objectives of this study were to (1) gauge interest in smartphone app use among patients after colorectal surgery and (2) better understand factors affecting patient app use in a postoperative, at-home setting.

methodsA prospective feasibility study was performed at a hospital that principally serves low socioeconomic status patients. After colorectal surgery, patients were enrolled and given a smartphone app, which uses previously validated content to provide symptom-based recommendations. Patients were instructed to use the app daily for 14 days after discharge. Demographics and usability data were collected at enrollment. Usability was measured with the System Usability Scale (SUS). At follow-up, the SUS was repeated and patients underwent a structured interview covering ease of use, willingness to use, and utility of use. Two members of the research team independently reviewed the field notes from follow-up interviews and extracted the most consistent themes. Chart and app log reviews identified clinical endpoints.

resultsWe screened 115 patients, enrolled 20 patients (17.4%), and completed follow-up interviews with 17 patients (85%). Reasons for nonenrollment included: failure to meet inclusion criteria (47/115, 40.9%), declined to participate (26/115, 22.6%), and other reasons (22/115, 19.1%). There was no difference in patient ratings between usability at first-use and after extended use, with SUS scores greater than the 95th percentile at both time points. Despite high usability ratings, 6/20 (30%) of patients never used the app at home after hospital discharge and 2/20 (10%) only used the app once. Interviews revealed three themes related to app use: (1) patient-related barriers could prevent use even though the app had high usability scores; (2) patients viewed the app as a second opinion, rather than a primary source of information; and (3) many patients viewed the app as an external burden.

conclusionsUse patterns in this study, and response rates after prompts to contact the operative team, suggest that apps need to be highly engaging to be adopted by patients. The growing penetration of smartphones and the proliferation of app-based interventions are unlikely to improve care coordination and communication, unless apps address the barriers and patient perceptions identified in this study. This study shows that high usability alone is not sufficient to motivate patients to use smartphone apps in the postoperative period.

Indexed as

colorectal surgerymHealthsmartphone apps

Identifiers

PMID28179215
PMCPMC5322201

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.