Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28432040›Full record

Observational studyJournal of medical Internet research2017

Usability, Acceptability, and Adherence to an Electronic Self-Monitoring System in Patients With Major Depression Discharged From Inpatient Wards.

Lise Lauritsen, Louise Andersen, Emilia Olsson, Stine Rauff Søndergaard, Lasse Benn Nørregaard, Philip Kaare Løventoft, Signe Dunker Svendsen, Erik Frøkjær, Hans Mørch Jensen, Ida Hageman and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lise LauritsenPsychiatric Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-7288-4816
Louise AndersenPsychiatric Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-6060-6109
Emilia OlssonPsychiatric Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-4580-5676
Stine Rauff SøndergaardPsychiatric Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-2259-4829
Lasse Benn NørregaardMonsenso App, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9354-3965
Philip Kaare LøventoftRehfeld Medical, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-6536-7805
Signe Dunker SvendsenPsychiatric Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-3140-5997
Erik FrøkjærDepartment of Computer Science, Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-6627-9396
Hans Mørch JensenPsychiatric Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-9519-5848
Ida HagemanPsychiatric Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-4175-0946
Lars Vedel KessingPsychiatric Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-9377-9436
Klaus MartinyPsychiatric Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-7317-5958
University of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients suffering from depression have a high risk of relapse and readmission in the weeks following discharge from inpatient wards. Electronic self-monitoring systems that offer patient-communication features are now available to offer daily support to patients, but the usability, acceptability, and adherence to these systems has only been sparsely investigated.

objectiveWe aim to test the usability, acceptability, adherence, and clinical outcome of a newly developed computer-based electronic self-assessment system (the Daybuilder system) in patients suffering from depression, in the period from discharge until commencing outpatient treatment in the Intensive Outpatient Unit for Affective Disorders.

methodsPatients suffering from unipolar major depression that were referred from inpatient wards to an intensive outpatient unit were included in this study before their discharge, and were followed for four weeks. User satisfaction was assessed using semiqualitative questionnaires and the System Usability Scale (SUS). Patients were interviewed at baseline and at endpoint with the Hamilton depression rating scale (HAM-D17), the Major Depression Inventory (MDI), and the 5-item World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-5). In this four-week period patients used the Daybuilder system to self-monitor mood, sleep, activity, and medication adherence on a daily basis. The system displayed a graphical representation of the data that was simultaneously displayed to patients and clinicians. Patients were phoned weekly to discuss their data entries. The primary outcomes were usability, acceptability, and adherence to the system. The secondary outcomes were changes in: the electronically self-assessed mood, sleep, and activity scores; and scores from the HAM-D17, MDI, and WHO-5 scales.

resultsIn total, 76% of enrolled patients (34/45) completed the four-week study. Five patients were readmitted due to relapse. The 34 patients that completed the study entered data for mood on 93.8% of the days (872/930), sleep on 89.8% of the days (835/930), activity on 85.6% of the days (796/930), and medication on 88.0 % of the days (818/930). SUS scores were 86.2 (standard deviation [SD] 9.7) and 79% of the patients (27/34) found that the system lived up to their expectations. A significant improvement in depression severity was found on the HAM-D17 from 18.0 (SD 6.5) to 13.3 (SD 7.3; P<.01), on the MDI from 27.1 (SD 13.1) to 22.1 (SD 12.7; P=.006), and in quality of life on the WHO-5 from 31.3 (SD 22.9) to 43.4 (SD 22.1; P<.001) scales, but not on self-assessed mood (P=.08). Mood and sleep parameters were highly variable from day-to-day. Sleep-offset was significantly delayed from baseline, averaging 48 minutes (standard error 12 minutes; P<.001). Furthermore, when estimating delay of sleep-onset (with sleep quality included in the model) during the study period, this showed a significant negative effect on mood (P=.03).

conclusionsThe Daybuilder systems performed well technically, and patients were satisfied with the system and had high adherence to self-assessments. The dropout rate and the gradual delay in sleep emphasize the need for continued clinical support for these patients, especially when considering sleep guidance.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareComputer SystemsDiagnostic Self EvaluationMajor Depressive DisorderAdultAttitude to ComputersFemaleHumansMaleMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicPatient DischargePatient DropoutsPatient SatisfactionQuality of Lifechronotherapeuticsdepressive disorder, majorelectronic monitoringgraph drawinginpatientsobservational studypatient participationself-assessmentsleep

Identifiers

PMID28432040
PMCPMC5420067
OpenAlexW2606593805

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.