Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31199329›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2019

Mobile Health Adoption in Mental Health: User Experience of a Mobile Health App for Patients With an Eating Disorder.

Dimitra Anastasiadou, Frans Folkvord, Eduardo Serrano-Troncoso, Francisco Lupiañez-Villanueva

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
10.4field-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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 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. Leveraging Technology to Enhance Eating Disorder Treatment Outcomes.The Psychiatric clinics of North America · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Psychiatric Considerations of Infertility.Psychiatry investigation · 2024
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Dimitra AnastasiadouDepartment of Information and Communication Sciences, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7544-523X
Frans FolkvordOpen Evidence Research, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7602-3792
Eduardo Serrano-TroncosoChild and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology Department, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4935-7348
Francisco Lupiañez-VillanuevaDepartment of Information and Communication Sciences, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5361-7678
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya · ESHospital Sant Joan de Déu Barcelona · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the worldwide growth in mobile health (mHealth) tools and the possible benefits for both patients and health care providers, the overall adoption levels of mHealth tools by health professionals remain relatively low.

objectiveThis study aimed (1) to investigate attitudes of health care providers and mHealth experts toward mHealth tools in the health context in general, and this study aimed (2) to test the acceptability and feasibility of a specific mHealth tool for patients with an eating disorder (ED), called TCApp, among patients and ED specialists.

methodsTo this purpose, we conducted an explorative qualitative study with 4 in-depth group discussions with several groups of stakeholders: our first focus group was conducted with 11 experts on mHealth from the Catalan Association of Health Entities; the second focus group included 10 health care professionals from the Spanish College of Doctors of Barcelona; the third focus group involved 9 patients with an ED who had used the TCApp over a 12-week period, and the fourth and last focus group involved 8 ED specialists who had monitored such ED patients on the Web.

resultsThe focus groups showed that health care providers and mHealth experts reported barriers for mHealth adoption more often than facilitators, indicating that mHealth techniques are difficult to obtain and use. Most barriers were attributed to external factors relating to the human or organizational environment (ie, lack of time because of workload, lack of direct interest on a legislative or political level) rather than being attributed to internal factors relating to individual obstacles. The results of the mHealth intervention study indicate that the TCApp was considered as easy to use and useful, although patients and the ED specialists monitoring them on the Web reported different adoption problems, such as the inability to personalize the app, a lack of motivational and interactive components, or difficulties in adhering to the study protocol.

conclusionsIn general, this paper indicates that both health professionals and patients foresee difficulties that need to be addressed before comprehensive adoption and usage of mHealth techniques can be effectively implemented. Such findings are in line with previous studies, suggesting that although they acknowledge their possible benefits and cost-effectiveness, health care providers are quite resistant and conservative about integrating mHealth technologies in their daily practice.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultFeeding and Eating DisordersFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMental Health ServicesMobile ApplicationsQualitative ResearchSpainTelemedicineeating disordersfocus groupsmental healthmHealthmobile applications

Identifiers

PMID31199329
PMCPMC6592393
OpenAlexW2940737227

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.