Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30853507›Full record

ArticleResearch in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP2020

Usability and feasibility of consumer-facing technology to reduce unsafe medication use by older adults.

Richard J Holden, Noll L Campbell, Ephrem Abebe, Daniel O Clark, Denisha Ferguson, Kunal Bodke, Malaz A Boustani, Christopher M Callahan, Brain Health Patient Safety Laboratory

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
14.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Mobile applications on app stores for deprescribing: A scoping review.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. A rapid review of interventions to improve medicine self-management for older people living at home.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. The methodology of the Agile Nudge University.Frontiers in health services · 2023
    Article
  17. Digital Engagement of Older Adults: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022
    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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Richard J HoldenDepartment of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA; Indiana University Center for Aging Research, Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA; Center for Health Innovation and Implementation Science, Indiana University School of Medicine and Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA. Electronic address: rjholden@iu.edu.
Noll L CampbellIndiana University Center for Aging Research, Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA; Center for Health Innovation and Implementation Science, Indiana University School of Medicine and Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA; Purdue University College of Pharmacy, West Lafayette, IN, USA; Eskenazi Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Ephrem AbebeArmstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins University-School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Daniel O ClarkDepartment of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA; Indiana University Center for Aging Research, Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Denisha FergusonIndiana University Center for Aging Research, Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Kunal BodkeIndiana University Center for Aging Research, Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Malaz A BoustaniIndiana University Center for Aging Research, Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA; Center for Health Innovation and Implementation Science, Indiana University School of Medicine and Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA; Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Indianapolis, IN, USA; Sandra Eskenazi Center for Brain Care Innovation, Eskenazi Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Christopher M CallahanDepartment of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA; Indiana University Center for Aging Research, Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA; Sandra Eskenazi Center for Brain Care Innovation, Eskenazi Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Brain Health Patient Safety Laboratory
Eskenazi HealthRegenstrief Institute · USIndiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · USIndiana University School of MedicineJohns Hopkins University · USPurdue University West Lafayette · US

Funding

Brain Health Patient Safety Learning LaboratoryP30HS024384 · AHRQ · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI CALLAHAN, CHRISTOPHER M · 2015 to 2018
$3.8M
AHRQ HHS P30 HS024384
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobile health technology can improve medication safety for older adults, for instance, by educating patients about the risks associated with anticholinergic medication use.

objectiveThis study's objective was to test the usability and feasibility of Brain Buddy, a consumer-facing mobile health technology designed to inform and empower older adults to consider the risks and benefits of anticholinergics.

methodsTwenty-three primary care patients aged ≥60 years and using anticholinergic medications participated in summative, task-based usability testing of Brain Buddy. Self-report usability was assessed by the System Usability Scale and performance-based usability data were collected for each task through observation. A subset of 17 participants contributed data on feasibility, assessed by self-reported attitudes (feeling informed) and behaviors (speaking to a physician), with confirmation following a physician visit.

resultsOverall usability was acceptable or better, with 100% of participants completing each Brain Buddy task and a mean System Usability Scale score of 78.8, corresponding to "Good" to "Excellent" usability. Observed usability issues included higher rates of errors, hesitations, and need for assistance on three tasks, particularly those requiring data entry. Among participants contributing to feasibility data, 100% felt better informed after using Brain Buddy and 94% planned to speak to their physician about their anticholinergic related risk. On follow-up, 82% reported having spoken to their physician, a rate independently confirmed by physicians.

conclusionConsumer-facing technology can be a low-cost, scalable intervention to improve older adults' medication safety, by informing and empowering patients. User-centered design and evaluation with demographically heterogeneous clinical samples uncovers correctable usability issues and confirms the value of interventions targeting consumers as agents in shared decision making and behavior change.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsPatient SafetyAgedAged, 80 and overCholinergic AntagonistsFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRiskTelemedicineCholinergic AntagonistsAnticholinergicsBehavioral informaticsDigital health (eHealth)Human factors engineeringInformation technologyMedicationsMobile health (mHealth)Patient safetyShared decision makingUser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID30853507
PMCPMC6710164
OpenAlexW2917261864

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.