Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28341615›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2017

Design and Usability of a Heart Failure mHealth System: A Pilot Study.

Nagla Alnosayan, Samir Chatterjee, Ala Alluhaidan, Edward Lee, Linda Houston Feenstra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. mHealth education interventions in heart failure.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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.

Nagla AlnosayanIDEA Laboratory, Center for Information Systems and Technology, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1111-9384
Samir ChatterjeeIDEA Laboratory, Center for Information Systems and Technology, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3268-6604
Ala AlluhaidanIDEA Laboratory, Center for Information Systems and Technology, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6829-9705
Edward LeeCity of Hope, Duarte, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4726-2935
Linda Houston FeenstraLoma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2794-9908

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the advances in mobile health (mHealth) systems, little is known about patients' and providers' experiences using a new mHealth system design.

objectiveThis study aimed to understand challenges and provide design considerations for a personalized mHealth system that could effectively support heart failure (HF) patients after they transition into the home environment.

methodsFollowing exploratory interviews with nurses and preventive care physicians, an mHealth system was developed. Patients were asked to measure their weight, blood pressure, and blood glucose (if they had diabetes). They were also instructed to enter symptoms, view notifications, and read messages on a mobile app that we developed. A Bluetooth-enabled weight scale, blood pressure monitor, glucometer, and mobile phone was provided after an introductory orientation and training session. HF nurses used a dashboard to view daily measurements for each patient and received text and email alerts when risk was indicated. Observations of usage, cases of deterioration, readmissions, and metrics related to system usability and quality of life outcomes were used to determine overall effectiveness of the system, whereas focus group sessions with patients were conducted to elicit participants' feedback on the system's design.

resultsA total of 8 patients with HF participated over a 6-month period. Overall, the mean users' satisfaction with the system ranked 73%, which was above average. Quality of life improvement was 3.6. Patients and nurses used the system on a regular basis and were able to successfully identify and manage 8 health deteriorations, of which 5 were completely managed remotely. Focus groups revealed that, on one hand, the system was beneficial and helped patients with: recording and tracking readings; receiving encouragement and reassurance from nurses; spotting and solving problems; learning from past experiences; and communication. On the other hand, findings also highlighted design issues and recommendations for future systems such as the need to communicate via other media, personalize symptom questions and messages, integrate other health tracking technologies, and provide additional methods to analyze and visualize their data.

conclusionsUnderstanding users' experiences provides important design considerations that could complement existing design recommendations from the literature, and, when combined with physician and nurse requirements, have the potential to yield a feasible telehealth system that is effective in supporting HF self-care. Future studies will include these guidelines and use a larger sample size to validate the outcomes.

Indexed as

heart failurehuman factors engineeringmHealthself-managementtelehealth

Identifiers

PMID28341615
PMCPMC5384995

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.