Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28947415›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2017

Prescribing of Electronic Activity Monitors in Cardiometabolic Diseases: Qualitative Interview-Based Study.

Alice Bellicha, Sandrine Macé, Jean-Michel Oppert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

3 authors.

Alice BellichaInstitute of Cardiometabolism and Nutrition, University Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris 6, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5572-487X
Sandrine MacéDepartment of Marketing, Ecole Supérieure de Commerce de Paris-Europe, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1261-4723
Jean-Michel OppertInstitute of Cardiometabolism and Nutrition, University Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris 6, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0324-4820

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prevalence of noncommunicable diseases, including those such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, so-called cardiometabolic diseases, is high and is increasing worldwide. Strong evidence supports the role of physical activity in management of these diseases. There is general consensus that mHealth technology, including electronic activity monitors, can potentially increase physical activity in patients, but their use in clinical settings remains limited. Practitioners' requirements when prescribing electronic activity monitors have been poorly described.

objectiveThe aims of this qualitative study were (1) to explore how specialist physicians prescribe electronic activity monitors to patients presenting with cardiometabolic conditions, and (2) to better understand their motivation for and barriers to prescribing such monitors.

methodsWe conducted qualitative semistructured interviews in March to May 2016 with 11 senior physicians from a public university hospital in France with expertise in management of cardiometabolic diseases (type 1 and type 2 diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and dyslipidemia). Interviews lasted 45 to 60 minutes and were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using directed content analysis. We report our findings following the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist.

resultsMost physicians we interviewed had never prescribed electronic activity monitors, whereas they frequently prescribed blood glucose or blood pressure self-monitoring devices. Reasons for nonprescription included lack of interest in the data collected, lack of evidence for data accuracy, concern about work overload possibly resulting from automatic data transfer, and risk of patients becoming addicted to data. Physicians expected future marketing of easy-to-use monitors that will accurately measure physical activity duration and intensity and provide understandable motivating feedback.

conclusionsFeatures of electronic activity monitors, although popular among the general public, do not meet the needs of physicians. In-depth understanding of physicians' expectations is a first step toward designing technologies that can be widely used in clinical settings and facilitate physical activity prescription. Physicians should have a role, along with key health care stakeholders-patients, researchers, information technology firms, the public, and private payers-in developing the most effective methods for integrating activity monitors into patient care.

Indexed as

Qualitative ResearchAdultAgedCardiovascular DiseasesExerciseFemaleHumansMaleMetabolic DiseasesMiddle AgedMobile ApplicationsTelemedicineaccelerometercardiometabolic diseaseselectronic activity monitorsfitness trackermHealthmobile healthphysical activityphysicians’ perspectivesprescriptionssmart pedometertelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID28947415
PMCPMC5633695

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.