Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28885637›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2017

"Is There An App For That?" Orthopaedic Patient Preferences For A Smartphone Application.

Jonathan R Datillo, Daniel J Gittings, Matthew Sloan, William M Hardaker, Matthew J Deasey, Neil P Sheth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Proposal of a New Rating Concept for Digital Health Applications in Orthopedics and Traumatology.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Creating Value in Plastic Surgery.Seminars in plastic surgery · 2018
    Review
  18. 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

6 authors.

Jonathan R Datillo
Daniel J Gittings
Matthew Sloan
William M Hardaker
Matthew J Deasey
Neil P ShethNeil P. Sheth, MD, University of Pennsylvania, 800 Spruce Street, 1st Floor Cathcart Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA, Email: neil.sheth@uphs.upenn.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients are seeking out medical information on the Internet and utilizing smartphone health applications ("apps"). Smartphone use has exponentially increased among orthopaedic surgeons and patients. Despite this increase, patients are rarely directed to specific apps by physicians. No study exists querying patient preferences for a patient-centered, orthopaedic smartphone application.

objectivesThe purpose of this study is to 1) determine Internet use patterns amongst orthopaedic patients; 2) ascertain access to and use of smartphones; and 3) elucidate what features orthopaedic patients find most important in a smartphone application.

methodsWe surveyed patients in an orthopaedic practice in an urban academic center to assess demographics, access to and patterns of Internet and Smartphone use, and preferences for features in a smartphone app.

resultsA total of 310 surveys were completed. Eighty percent of patients reported Internet access, and 62% used the Internet for health information. Seventy-seven percent owned smartphones, 45% used them for health information, and 28% owned health apps. Only 11% were referred to an app by a physician. The highest ranked features were appointment reminders, ability to view test results, communication with physicians, and discharge instructions. General orthopaedic information and pictures or videos explaining surgery were the 2 lowest ranked features. Seventy-one percent of patients felt an app with some of the described features would improve their healthcare experiences, and 40% would pay for the app.

conclusionsThe smartphone is an under-utilized tool to enhance patient-physician communication, increase satisfaction, and improve quality of care. Patients were enthusiastic about app features that are often included in patient health portals, but ranked orthopaedic educational features lowest. Further study is required to elucidate how best to use orthopaedic apps as physician-directed educational opportunities to promote patient satisfaction and quality of care.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsOrthopedicsPatient PreferenceSmartphoneHumansInternete-healthinternetorthopaedic surgerySmartphonetelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID28885637
PMCPMC6220699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.