Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35723928›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2022

Developing mHealth to the Context and Valuation of Injured Patients and Professionals in Hospital Trauma Care: Qualitative and Quantitative Formative Evaluations.

Thymen Houwen, Miel A P Vugts, Koen W W Lansink, Hilco P Theeuwes, Nicky Neequaye, M Susan H Beerekamp, Margot C W Joosen, Mariska A C de Jongh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Thymen Houwen *Network Emergency Care Brabant, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis, Tilburg, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2441-3892
Miel A P Vugts *Tranzo Scientific Centre for Care and Wellbeing, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5367-9334
Koen W W LansinkDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis, Tilburg, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2646-444X
Hilco P TheeuwesDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis, Tilburg, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4900-3539
Nicky NeequayeNetwork Emergency Care Brabant, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis, Tilburg, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5506-2298
M Susan H BeerekampDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Almelo, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2692-782X
Margot C W JoosenTranzo Scientific Centre for Care and Wellbeing, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5064-7302
Mariska A C de JonghNetwork Emergency Care Brabant, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis, Tilburg, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9005-9185
Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis · NLTilburg University · NLZiekenhuis Groep Twente · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTrauma care faces challenges to innovating their services, such as with mobile health (mHealth) app, to improve the quality of care and patients' health experience. Systematic needs inquiries and collaborations with professional and patient end users are highly recommended to develop and prepare future implementations of such innovations.

objectiveThis study aimed to develop a trauma mHealth app for patient information and support in accordance with the Center for eHealth Research and Disease Management road map and describe experiences of unmet information and support needs among injured patients with trauma, barriers to and facilitators of the provision of information and support among trauma care professionals, and drivers of value of an mHealth app in patients with trauma and trauma care professionals.

methodsFormative evaluations were conducted using quantitative and qualitative methods. Ten semistructured interviews with patients with trauma and a focus group with 4 trauma care professionals were conducted for contextual inquiry and value specification. User requirements and value drivers were applied in prototyping. Furthermore, a complementary quantitative discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted with 109 Dutch trauma surgeons, which enabled triangulation on value specification results. In the DCE, preferences were stated for hypothetical mHealth products with various attributes. Panel data from the DCE were analyzed using conditional and mixed logit models.

resultsPatients disclosed a need for more psychosocial support and easy access to more extensive information on their injury, its consequences, and future prospects. Health care professionals designated workload as an essential issue; a digital solution should not require additional time. The conditional logit model of DCE results suggested that access to patient app data through electronic medical record integration (odds ratio [OR] 3.3, 95% CI 2.55-4.34; P<.001) or a web viewer (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.64-3.31; P<.001) was considered the most important for an mHealth solution by surgeons, followed by the inclusion of periodic self-measurements (OR 2, 95% CI 1.64-2.46; P<.001), the local adjustment of patient information (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.42-2.33; P<.001), local hospital identification (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.31-2.10; P<.001), complication detection (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.21-1.84; P<.001), and the personalization of rehabilitation through artificial intelligence (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.13-1.62; P=.001).

conclusionsIn the context of trauma care, end users have many requirements for an mHealth solution that addresses psychosocial functioning; dependable information; and, possibly, a prediction of how a patient's recovery trajectory is evolving. A structured development approach provided insights into value drivers and facilitated mHealth prototype enhancement. The findings imply that iterative development should move on from simple and easily implementable mHealth solutions to those that are suitable for broader innovations of care pathways that most-but plausibly not yet all-end users in trauma care will value. This study could inspire the trauma care community.

Indexed as

evaluation studyholistic healthpatient care managementqualitative researchrecovery of functionrehabilitationtelemedicinewounds and injuries

Identifiers

PMID35723928
PMCPMC9254041
OpenAlexW4283211669

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.