ArticleJMIR aging2018
Evaluating the Use of Mobile Health Technology in Older Adults With Heart Failure: Mixed-Methods Study.
Article in JMIR aging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 6 of them syntheses 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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patients' Experiences of Nurse-Led eHealth Interventions for Chronic Heart Failure: Qualitative Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- User Engagement With mHealth Interventions to Promote Treatment Adherence and Self-Management in People With Chronic Health Conditions: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Digital Health Interventions for Heart Failure Management in Underserved Rural Areas of the United States: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Pooled it
- Does Connected Health Technology Improve Health-Related Outcomes in Rural Cardiac Populations? Systematic Review Narrative Synthesis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- mHealth education interventions in heart failure.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Evaluation of Heart Failure Apps to Promote Self-Care: Systematic App Search.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Pooled it
- Age Is Not a Barrier: Older Adults With Cancer Derive Similar Benefit in a Randomized Controlled Trial of a Remote Symptom Monitoring Intervention Compared With Younger Adults.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterTrial
- Feeling safe by means of remote cardiac rhythm surveillance after open cardiac surgery: a mixed method pilot feasibility study.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- How and Why Telehealth Interventions Improve Self-Care Among Vulnerable Groups of Patients With Heart Failure: Scoping Review and Rapid Realist Synthesis.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Co-constructing stories with patients with heart failure to envision future remote care possibilities: a qualitative interview and sketching study.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- BlaCancer: a mobile health solution for enhancing bladder cancer care.BMC urology · 2025Article
- Cardiomeds, an mHealth App for Self-Management to Support Swiss Patients With Heart Failure: 2-Stage Mixed Methods Usability Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Wearable Devices for Supporting Chronic Disease Self-Management: Scoping Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2024Article
- Patients with Heart Failure: Internet Use and Mobile Health Perceptions.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
- Experiences of receiving an mHealth application with proactive nursing support among community-dwelling older adults: a mixed-methods study.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- What are the determinants of older people adopting communicative e-health services: a meta-ethnography.BMC health services research · 2024Review
- Self-care management and experiences of using telemonitoring as support when living with hypertension or heart failure: A descriptive qualitative study.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2023Article
- Outcome's Classification in Mobile Applications Tailored to Parents of Premature Infants: A Systematic Review.Iranian journal of public health · 2023Review
- Patient safety and sense of security when telemonitoring chronic conditions at home: the views of patients and healthcare professionals - a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Personalized Mobile Health for Elderly Home Care: A Systematic Review of Benefits and Challenges.International journal of telemedicine and applications · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHeart failure (HF) is associated with high rates of hospitalizations, morbidity, mortality, and costs. Remote patient monitoring (mobile health, mHealth) shows promise in improving self-care and HF management, thus increasing quality of care while reducing hospitalizations and costs; however, limited information exists regarding perceptions of older adults with HF about mHealth use.
objectiveThis study aimed to compare perspectives of older adults with HF who were randomized to either (1) mHealth equipment connected to a 24-hour call center, (2) digital home equipment, or (3) standard care, with regard to ease and satisfaction with equipment, provider communication and engagement, and ability to self-monitor and manage their disease.
methodsWe performed a pilot study using a mixed-methods descriptive design with pre- and postsurveys, following participants for 12 weeks. We augmented these data with semistructured qualitative interviews to learn more about feasibility, satisfaction, communication, and self-management.
resultsWe enrolled 28 patients with HF aged 55 years and above, with 57% (16/28) male, 79% (22/28) non-Hispanic white, and with multiple comorbid conditions. At baseline, 50% (14/28) rated their health fair or poor and 36% (10/28) and 25% (7/28) were very often/always frustrated and discouraged by their health. At baseline, 46% (13/28) did not monitor their weight, 29% (8/28) did not monitor their blood pressure, and 68% (19/28) did not monitor for symptoms. Post intervention, 100% of the equipment groups home monitored daily. For technology anxiety, 36% (10/28) indicated technology made them nervous, and 32% (9/28) reported fear of technology, without significant changes post intervention. Technology usability post intervention scored high (91/100), reflecting ease of use. A majority indicated that a health care provider should be managing their health, and 71% reported that one should trust and not question the provider. Moreover, 57% (16/28) believed it was better to seek professional help than caring for oneself. Post intervention, mHealth users relied more on themselves, which was not mirrored in the home equipment or standard care groups. Participants were satisfied with communication and engagement with providers, yet many described access problems. Distressing symptoms were unpredictable and prevailed over the 12 weeks with 79 provider visits and 7 visits to emergency departments. The nurse call center received 872 readings, and we completed 289 telephone calls with participants. Narrative data revealed the following main themes: (1) traditional communication and engagement with providers prevailed, delaying access to care; (2) home monitoring with technology was described as useful, and mHealth users felt secure knowing that someone was observing them; (3) equipment groups felt more confident in self-monitoring and managing; and finally, (4) uncertainty and frustration with persistent health problems.
conclusionsmHealth equipment is feasible with potential to improve patient-centered outcomes and increase self-management in older adults with HF.
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.