ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2017
Connected Health Devices for Health Care in French General Medicine Practice: Cross-Sectional Study.
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 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Social, Organizational, and Technological Factors Impacting Clinicians' Adoption of Mobile Health Tools: Systematic Literature Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Pooled it
- Review
- The impact of mobile health interventions on service users' health outcomes and the role of health professions: a systematic review of systematic reviews-protocol.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- The use of medical health applications by primary care physicians in Israel: a cross-sectional study.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Patient-Generated Health Data (PGHD): Understanding, Requirements, Challenges, and Existing Techniques for Data Security and Privacy.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- An age-old problem or an old-age problem? A UK survey of attitudes, historical use and recommendations by healthcare professionals to use healthcare apps.BMC geriatrics · 2023Article
- Willingness of French General Practitioners to Prescribe mHealth Apps and Devices: Quantitative Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Article
- Physicians' Attitudes Toward Prescribable mHealth Apps and Implications for Adoption in Germany: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Article
- Implications of remote monitoring Technology in Optimizing Traditional Self-Monitoring of blood glucose in adults with T2DM in primary care.BMC endocrine disorders · 2021Article
- Analysis of the Regulatory, Legal, and Medical Conditions for the Prescription of Mobile Health Applications in the United States, The European Union, and France.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
- Factors Impacting Clinicians' Adoption of a Clinical Photo Documentation App and its Implications for Clinical Workflows and Quality of Care: Qualitative Case Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Barriers to and Facilitators of the Prescription of mHealth Apps in Australian General Practice: Qualitative Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Barriers and Facilitators to the Adoption of Mobile Health Among Health Care Professionals From the United Kingdom: Discrete Choice Experiment.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Identifying Frameworks for Validation and Monitoring of Consensual Behavioral Intervention Technologies: Narrative Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Review
- The Extent and Coverage of Current Knowledge of Connected Health: Systematic Mapping Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Review
- Current Knowledge and Adoption of Mobile Health Apps Among Australian General Practitioners: Survey Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Article
- Veterans' Perspectives on Fitbit Use in Treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: An Interview Study.JMIR mental health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe integration of Connected Health Devices (CHDs) is growing within mobile health (mHealth) and telemedicine, encouraged by institutions and industries. The idea is to improve lifestyle habits and health behaviors as a preventive goal in an aging population with fewer physicians available. However, their ill-defined place in health care does not promote their use in current medical practice.
objectiveThe primary objective of this study was to quantify CHDs' use rate by general practitioners (GPs). A secondary objective was to evaluate their benefits and limitations in usual care.
methodsA cross-sectional study through an Internet-based survey was addressed to French GPs via regional medical unions and continuous education agencies, supplemented with an informative website, from March 2015 to July 2015. Surveys where either the form was insufficiently filled or the main question was left unanswered were excluded from the study.
resultsA total of 1084 answers were analyzed, of which 19.46% (211/1084, 95% CI 17.1-21.8) GPs used CHDs, and 10.15% (110/1084, 95% CI 8.5-12.1) prescribed a CHD. CHD users statistically prescribed more CHDs (7.38% [80/1084] in the user group vs 2.86% [31/1084] in nonusers; P<.001) and were more likely to use them in the future. Major interests in their utilization were in patient monitoring for 84.96% (921/1084) and patient education for 75.83% (822/1084), especially for diabetes (89.67%, 972/1084) and hypertension (84.13%, 912/1084). Generated data had to be managed securely by the patient primarily for 85.79% (930/1084) of the GPs. CHDs had to not constrain GPs outside clinical consultation, nor restrain their time for 75.83% (822/1084). Additional actors in patient care were not desired for 79.98% (867/1084) of the GPs. Questions about data management issues and technical difficulties were raised.
conclusionsCHDs are little used by French GPs and even less prescribed to their patients, as only a few GPs use these tools. Their benefits as tools of patient empowerment, although expected, remain to be demonstrated in real-life setups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.