Observational studyJMIR mHealth and uHealth2019
Comparison of On-Site Versus Remote Mobile Device Support in the Framingham Heart Study Using the Health eHeart Study for Digital Follow-up: Randomized Pilot Study Set Within an Observational Study Design.
Observational study 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 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of methods used to conduct decentralised clinical trials.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Building a Digital Health Research Platform to Enable Recruitment, Enrollment, Data Collection, and Follow-Up for a Highly Diverse Longitudinal US Cohort of 1 Million People in the All of Us Research Program: Design and Implementation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- The DCM Project Portal: A direct-to-participant platform of The DCM Research Project.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2024Article
- The DCM Project Portal: A direct-to-participant platform of The DCM Research Project.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
- Engagement With mHealth COVID-19 Digital Biomarker Measurements in a Longitudinal Cohort Study: Mixed Methods Evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Digital Connectedness in the Jackson Heart Study: Cross-sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Patient Onboarding and Engagement to Build a Digital Study After Enrollment in a Clinical Trial (TAILOR-PCI Digital Study): Intervention Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Our Whole Lives for Hypertension and Cardiac Risk Factors-Combining a Teaching Kitchen Group Visit With a Web-Based Platform: Feasibility Trial.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Clustering of Small Territories Based on Axes of Inequality.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The COVID-19 Citizen Science Study: Protocol for a Longitudinal Digital Health Cohort Study.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- Adherence of Mobile App-Based Surveys and Comparison With Traditional Surveys: eCohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNew electronic cohort (e-Cohort) study designs provide resource-effective methods for collecting participant data. It is unclear if implementing an e-Cohort study without direct, in-person participant contact can achieve successful participation rates.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to compare 2 distinct enrollment methods for setting up mobile health (mHealth) devices and to assess the ongoing adherence to device use in an e-Cohort pilot study.
methodsWe coenrolled participants from the Framingham Heart Study (FHS) into the FHS-Health eHeart (HeH) pilot study, a digital cohort with infrastructure for collecting mHealth data. FHS participants who had an email address and smartphone were randomized to our FHS-HeH pilot study into 1 of 2 study arms: remote versus on-site support. We oversampled older adults (age ≥65 years), with a target of enrolling 20% of our sample as older adults. In the remote arm, participants received an email containing a link to enrollment website and, upon enrollment, were sent 4 smartphone-connectable sensor devices. Participants in the on-site arm were invited to visit an in-person FHS facility and were provided in-person support for enrollment and connecting the devices. Device data were tracked for at least 5 months.
resultsCompared with the individuals who declined, individuals who consented to our pilot study (on-site, n=101; remote, n=93) were more likely to be women, highly educated, and younger. In the on-site arm, the connection and initial use of devices was ≥20% higher than the remote arm (mean percent difference was 25% [95% CI 17-35] for activity monitor, 22% [95% CI 12-32] for blood pressure cuff, 20% [95% CI 10-30] for scale, and 43% [95% CI 30-55] for electrocardiogram), with device connection rates in the on-site arm of 99%, 95%, 95%, and 84%. Once connected, continued device use over the 5-month study period was similar between the study arms.
conclusionsOur pilot study demonstrated that the deployment of mobile devices among middle-aged and older adults in the context of an on-site clinic visit was associated with higher initial rates of device use as compared with offering only remote support. Once connected, the device use was similar in both groups.
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.