Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37389932›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2023

Barriers to and Facilitators of Using Remote Measurement Technology in the Long-Term Monitoring of Individuals With ADHD: Interview Study.

Hayley Denyer, Qigang Deng, Abimbola Adanijo, Philip Asherson, Andrea Bilbow, Amos Folarin, Madeleine J Groom, Chris Hollis, Til Wykes, Richard Jb Dobson and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Hayley DenyerSocial, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1942-7325
Qigang DengSocial, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8257-191X
Abimbola AdanijoSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2442-5914
Philip AshersonSocial, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2667-2254
Andrea BilbowAttention Deficit Disorder Information and Support Service (ADDISS), Edgware, Middlesex, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1888-4049
Amos FolarinThe Department of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0333-1927
Madeleine J GroomSchool of Medicine, Mental Health & Clinical Neurosciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5182-518X
Chris HollisNIHR MindTech Healthcare Technology Co-operative, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1083-6744
Til WykesSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5881-8003
Richard Jb DobsonThe Department of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4224-9245
Jonna KuntsiSocial, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0113-8162
Sara SimblettDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8075-8238
King's College London · GBUniversity of London · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GBSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRemote measurement technology (RMT) has the potential to address current research and clinical challenges of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms and its co-occurring mental health problems. Despite research using RMT already being successfully applied to other populations, adherence and attrition are potential obstacles when applying RMT to a disorder such as ADHD. Hypothetical views and attitudes toward using RMT in a population with ADHD have previously been explored; however, to our knowledge, there is no previous research that has used qualitative methods to understand the barriers to and facilitators of using RMT in individuals with ADHD following participation in a remote monitoring period.

objectiveWe aimed to evaluate the barriers to and facilitators of using RMT in individuals with ADHD compared with a group of people who did not have a diagnosis of ADHD. We also aimed to explore participants' views on using RMT for 1 or 2 years in future studies.

methodsIn total, 20 individuals with ADHD and 20 individuals without ADHD were followed up for 10 weeks using RMT that involved active (questionnaires and cognitive tasks) and passive (smartphone sensors and wearable devices) monitoring; 10 adolescents and adults with ADHD and 12 individuals in a comparison group completed semistructured qualitative interviews at the end of the study period. The interviews focused on potential barriers to and facilitators of using RMT in adults with ADHD. A framework methodology was used to explore the data qualitatively.

resultsBarriers to and facilitators of using RMT were categorized as health-related, user-related, and technology-related factors across both participant groups. When comparing themes that emerged across the participant groups, both individuals with and without ADHD experienced similar barriers and facilitators in using RMT. The participants agreed that RMT can provide useful objective data. However, slight differences between the participant groups were identified as barriers to RMT across all major themes. Individuals with ADHD described the impact that their ADHD symptoms had on participating (health-related theme), commented on the perceived cost of completing the cognitive tasks (user-related theme), and described more technical challenges (technology-related theme) than individuals without ADHD. Hypothetical views on future studies using RMT in individuals with ADHD for 1 or 2 years were positive.

conclusionsIndividuals with ADHD agreed that RMT, which uses repeated measurements with ongoing active and passive monitoring, can provide useful objective data. Although themes overlapped with previous research on barriers to and facilitators of engagement with RMT (eg, depression and epilepsy) and with a comparison group, there are unique considerations for people with ADHD, for example, understanding the impact that ADHD symptoms may have on engaging with RMT. Researchers need to continue working with people with ADHD to develop future RMT studies for longer periods.

Indexed as

ADHDattention-deficit/hyperactivity disorderbarriers and facilitatorsengagementmobile phonequalitative analysisremote measurement technology

Identifiers

PMID37389932
PMCPMC10365629
OpenAlexW4382631411

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.