Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29272712›Full record

ArticleGeneral hospital psychiatry

Acceptability of mHealth augmentation of Collaborative Care: A mixed methods pilot study.

Amy M Bauer, Matthew Iles-Shih, Reza Hosseini Ghomi, Tessa Rue, Tess Grover, Naomi Kincler, Monica Miller, Wayne J Katon

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in General hospital psychiatry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06983808 (The PREBEAT Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 53 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 11 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.

NCT06983808 narecruitingnot on this map

The PREBEAT Trial: Digital PREhaBilitation in thE Cardiac Surgical populATion

TypeinterventionalSponsorClaire HinesRan2026 to 2027Enrolled40ConditionsCardiovascular DiseasesArmsDigital Cardiac Prehabilitation, Control (Standard treatment)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

8 authors.

Amy M BauerDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, United States. Electronic address: abauer1@uw.edu.
Matthew Iles-ShihDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, United States.
Reza Hosseini GhomiDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, United States.
Tessa RueDepartment of Biostatistics and Institute of Translational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, United States.
Tess GroverDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, United States.
Naomi KinclerGinger.io, United States.
Monica MillerUniversity of Washington Neighborhood Clinics, United States.
Wayne J KatonDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, United States.

Funding

NCCIH Supplement to NCATS/CTSA Program for KL2 Scholars - M. SoddersKL2TR002317 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Christy Michelle McKinney · 2017 to 2026
$14.5M
Institute of Translational Health SciencesKL2TR000421 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI DISIS, MARY L. · 2012 to 2016
$12.6M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000421NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR002317
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the feasibility and acceptability of a mobile health platform supporting Collaborative Care.

methodCollaborative Care patients (n=17) used a smartphone app to transmit PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores and sensor data to a dashboard used by one care manager. Patients completed usability and satisfaction surveys and qualitative interviews at 4weeks and the care manager completed a qualitative interview. Mobile metadata on app usage was obtained.

resultsAll patients used the app for 4weeks, but only 35% (n=6) sustained use at 8weeks. Prior to discontinuing use, 88% (n=15) completed all PHQ-9 and GAD-7 measures, with lower response rates for daily measures. Four themes emerged from interviews: understanding the purpose; care manager's role in supporting use; benefits of daily monitoring; and privacy / security concerns. Two themes were user-specific: patients' desire for personalization; and care manager burden.

conclusionsThe feasibility and acceptability of the mobile platform is supported by the high early response rate, however attrition was steep. Our qualitative findings revealed nuanced participant experiences and uncovered some concerns about mobile health. To encourage retention, attention may need to be directed toward promoting patient understanding and provider engagement, and offering personalized patient experiences.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdolescentAdultAgedAnxiety DisordersDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedDepressive DisorderFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansIntersectoral CollaborationMaleMental Health ServicesMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient ComplianceDepressionMental health servicesPatient reported outcome measuresPrimary health careSmartphoneTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID29272712
PMCPMC6512981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.