Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36595548›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Suitability and user acceptance of the eResearch system "Prospective Monitoring and Management App (PIA)"-The example of an epidemiological study on infectious diseases.

Julia Ortmann, Jana-Kristin Heise, Irina Janzen, Felix Jenniches, Yvonne Kemmling, Cornelia Frömke, Stefanie Castell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Responsive population-based cohorts as platforms for characterising pathogen- and population-level infection dynamics for epidemic prevention, preparedness and response.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Julia OrtmannDepartment for Epidemiology, Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, Brunswick, Lower Saxony, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4263-2746
Jana-Kristin HeiseDepartment for Epidemiology, Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, Brunswick, Lower Saxony, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7194-8673
Irina JanzenDepartment for Epidemiology, Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, Brunswick, Lower Saxony, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3961-3237
Felix JennichesDepartment for Epidemiology, Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, Brunswick, Lower Saxony, Germany.
Yvonne KemmlingDepartment for Epidemiology, Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, Brunswick, Lower Saxony, Germany.
Cornelia FrömkeHannover University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Hanover, Lower Saxony, Germany.
Stefanie CastellDepartment for Epidemiology, Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, Brunswick, Lower Saxony, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1762-8462
Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research · DEGerman Center for Infection Research · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe eResearch system "Prospective Monitoring and Management App (PIA)" allows researchers to implement questionnaires on any topic and to manage biosamples. Currently, we use PIA in the longitudinal study ZIFCO (Integrated DZIF Infection Cohort within the German National Cohort) in Hannover (Germany) to investigate e.g. associations of risk factors and infectious diseases. Our aim was to assess user acceptance and compliance to determine suitability of PIA for epidemiological research on transient infectious diseases.

methodsZIFCO participants used PIA to answer weekly questionnaires on health status and report spontaneous onset of symptoms. In case of symptoms of a respiratory infection, the app requested participants to self-sample a nasal swab for viral analysis. To assess user acceptance, we implemented the System Usability Scale (SUS) and fitted a linear regression model on the resulting score. For investigation of compliance with submitting the weekly health questionnaires, we used a logistic regression model with binomial response.

resultsWe analyzed data of 313 participants (median age 52.5 years, 52.4% women). An average SUS of 72.0 reveals good acceptance of PIA. Participants with a higher technology readiness score at the beginning of study participation also reported higher user acceptance. Overall compliance with submitting the weekly health questionnaires showed a median of 55.7%. Being female, of younger age and being enrolled for a longer time decreased the odds to respond. However, women over 60 had a higher chance to respond than women under 60, while men under 40 had the highest chance to respond. Compliance with nasal swab self-sampling was 77.2%. DISCUSSION: Our findings show that PIA is suitable for the use in epidemiologic studies with regular short questionnaires. Still, we will focus on user engagement and gamification for the further development of PIA to help incentivize regular and long-term participation.

Indexed as

Communicable DiseasesMobile ApplicationsFemaleGermanyHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID36595548
PMCPMC9810156
OpenAlexW4313458628

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.