Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35604761›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

Key Drivers and Facilitators of the Choice to Use mHealth Technology in People With Neurological Conditions: Observational Study.

Sara Simblett, Mark Pennington, Matthew Quaife, Evangelia Theochari, Patrick Burke, Giampaolo Brichetto, Julie Devonshire, Simon Lees, Ann Little, Angie Pullen and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. 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

21 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Sara SimblettPsychology Department, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8075-8238
Mark PenningtonPsychology Department, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1392-8700
Matthew QuaifeHealth Economics Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9291-1511
Evangelia TheochariNeurosciences Department, King's College Hospital, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4899-1670
Patrick BurkeRemote Assessment of Disease and Relapse in Central Nervous System Disorders Patient Advisory Board, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2547-6374
Giampaolo BrichettoRemote Assessment of Disease and Relapse in Central Nervous System Disorders Patient Advisory Board, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2026-3572
Julie DevonshireRemote Assessment of Disease and Relapse in Central Nervous System Disorders Patient Advisory Board, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4218-8323
Simon LeesRemote Assessment of Disease and Relapse in Central Nervous System Disorders Patient Advisory Board, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5140-7394
Ann LittleRemote Assessment of Disease and Relapse in Central Nervous System Disorders Patient Advisory Board, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9587-8507
Angie PullenRemote Assessment of Disease and Relapse in Central Nervous System Disorders Patient Advisory Board, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6735-8953
Amanda StonemanRemote Assessment of Disease and Relapse in Central Nervous System Disorders Patient Advisory Board, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8003-6067
Sarah ThorpeRemote Assessment of Disease and Relapse in Central Nervous System Disorders Patient Advisory Board, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8973-3777
Janice WeyerRemote Assessment of Disease and Relapse in Central Nervous System Disorders Patient Advisory Board, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7838-6260
Ashley PolhemusMerck Sharp & Dohme Information Technology, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5056-5785
Jan NovakPsychology Department, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5545-2723
Erin Dawe-LanePsychology Department, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8479-6696
Daniel MorrisPsychology Department, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5118-7344
Magano MutepuaPsychology Department, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5761-8894
Clarissa OdoiPsychology Department, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6132-9307
Emma WilsonPsychology Department, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4413-8338
Til WykesPsychology Department, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5881-8003
King's College London · GBKing's College Hospital · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is increasing interest in the potential uses of mobile health (mHealth) technologies, such as wearable biosensors, as supplements for the care of people with neurological conditions. However, adherence is low, especially over long periods. If people are to benefit from these resources, we need a better long-term understanding of what influences patient engagement. Previous research suggests that engagement is moderated by several barriers and facilitators, but their relative importance is unknown.

objectiveTo determine preferences and the relative importance of user-generated factors influencing engagement with mHealth technologies for 2 common neurological conditions with a relapsing-remitting course: multiple sclerosis (MS) and epilepsy.

methodsIn a discrete choice experiment, people with a diagnosis of MS (n=141) or epilepsy (n=175) were asked to select their preferred technology from a series of 8 vignettes with 4 characteristics: privacy, clinical support, established benefit, and device accuracy; each of these characteristics was greater or lower in each vignette. These characteristics had previously been emphasized by people with MS and or epilepsy as influencing engagement with technology. Mixed multinomial logistic regression models were used to establish which characteristics were most likely to affect engagement. Subgroup analyses explored the effects of demographic factors (such as age, gender, and education), acceptance of and familiarity with mobile technology, neurological diagnosis (MS or epilepsy), and symptoms that could influence motivation (such as depression).

resultsAnalysis of the responses to the discrete choice experiment validated previous qualitative findings that a higher level of privacy, greater clinical support, increased perceived benefit, and better device accuracy are important to people with a neurological condition. Accuracy was perceived as the most important factor, followed by privacy. Clinical support was the least valued of the attributes. People were prepared to trade a modest amount of accuracy to achieve an improvement in privacy, but less likely to make this compromise for other factors. The type of neurological condition (epilepsy or MS) did not influence these preferences, nor did the age, gender, or mental health status of the participants. Those who were less accepting of technology were the most concerned about privacy and those with a lower level of education were prepared to trade accuracy for more clinical support.

conclusionsFor people with neurological conditions such as epilepsy and MS, accuracy (ie, the ability to detect symptoms) is of the greatest interest. However, there are individual differences, and people who are less accepting of technology may need far greater reassurance about data privacy. People with lower levels of education value greater clinician involvement. These patient preferences should be considered when designing mHealth technologies.

Indexed as

digital healthdiscrete choice experimentepilepsyhealth datahealth economicsmHealthmobile technologymultiple sclerosisneurological conditionswearable biosensorswearable technology

Identifiers

PMID35604761
PMCPMC9171601
OpenAlexW4281289396

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.