Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31518257›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2018

Evaluating the Use of Mobile Health Technology in Older Adults With Heart Failure: Mixed-Methods Study.

Leanne L Lefler, Sarah J Rhoads, Melodee Harris, Ashley E Funderburg, Sandra A Lubin, Isis D Martel, Jennifer L Faulkner, Janet L Rooker, Deborah K Bell, Heather Marshall and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. mHealth education interventions in heart failure.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Leanne L LeflerCollege of Nursing, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0187-7272
Sarah J RhoadsCollege of Nursing, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1757-345X
Melodee HarrisCollege of Nursing, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9457-3018
Ashley E FunderburgCollege of Nursing, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3109-062X
Sandra A LubinCollege of Nursing, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8146-942X
Isis D MartelDepartment of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Fayetteville, AR, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7109-6316
Jennifer L FaulknerDepartment of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9726-8916
Janet L RookerCollege of Nursing, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0195-1652
Deborah K BellDepartment of Cardiology, University of Arkansas for Medical Science, Little Rock, AR, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3811-1817
Heather MarshallDepartment of Cardiology, University of Arkansas for Medical Science, Little Rock, AR, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6607-3910
Claudia J BeverlyCollege of Nursing, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6656-865X
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences · USUniversity of Tennessee Health Science Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

feasibilityheart failuremHealtholder adultsremote monitoringself-management

Identifiers

PMID31518257
PMCPMC6715011
OpenAlexW2900194327

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.