Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38573737›Full record

ArticleJMIR perioperative medicine2024

A Novel Digital Health Platform With Health Coaches to Optimize Surgical Patients: Feasibility Study at a Large Academic Health System.

Stephen Andrew Esper, Jennifer Holder-Murray, Katie Ann Meister, Hsing-Hua Sylvia Lin, David Kojo Hamilton, Yram Jan Groff, Brian Scott Zuckerbraun, Aman Mahajan

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR perioperative medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Preoperative Care Clinic Improves Survival for Patients Undergoing Free-Flap Reconstruction.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stephen Andrew Esper *Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4839-8030
Jennifer Holder-Murray *Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0030-9297
Katie Ann Meister *Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4027-7405
Hsing-Hua Sylvia LinDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8559-9830
David Kojo HamiltonDepartment of Neurosurgical Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1534-340X
Yram Jan GroffDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8303-2421
Brian Scott ZuckerbraunDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5226-1857
Aman MahajanDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3693-4556
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPip is a novel digital health platform (DHP) that combines human health coaches (HCs) and technology with patient-facing content. This combination has not been studied in perioperative surgical optimization.

objectiveThis study's aim was to test the feasibility of the Pip platform for deploying perioperative, digital, patient-facing optimization guidelines to elective surgical patients, assisted by an HC, at predefined intervals in the perioperative journey.

methodsWe conducted an institutional review board-approved, descriptive, prospective feasibility study of patients scheduled for elective surgery and invited to enroll in Pip from 2.5 to 4 weeks preoperatively through 4 weeks postoperatively at an academic medical center between November 22, 2022, and March 27, 2023. Descriptive primary end points were patient-reported outcomes, including patient satisfaction and engagement, and Pip HC evaluations. Secondary end points included mean or median length of stay (LOS), readmission at 7 and 30 days, and emergency department use within 30 days. Secondary end points were compared between patients who received Pip versus patients who did not receive Pip using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting.

resultsA total of 283 patients were invited, of whom 172 (60.8%) enrolled in Pip. Of these, 80.2% (138/172) patients had ≥1 HC session and proceeded to surgery, and 70.3% (97/138) of the enrolled patients engaged with Pip postoperatively. The mean engagement began 27 days before surgery. Pip demonstrated an 82% weekly engagement rate with HCs. Patients attended an average of 6.7 HC sessions. Of those patients that completed surveys (95/138, 68.8%), high satisfaction scores were recorded (mean 4.8/5; n=95). Patients strongly agreed that HCs helped them throughout the perioperative process (mean 4.97/5; n=33). The average net promoter score was 9.7 out of 10. A total of 268 patients in the non-Pip group and 128 patients in the Pip group had appropriate overlapping distributions of stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting for the analytic sample. The Pip cohort was associated with LOS reduction when compared to the non-Pip cohort (mean 2.4 vs 3.1 days; median 1.9, IQR 1.0-3.1 vs median 3.0, IQR 1.1-3.9 days; mean ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.62-0.93; P=.009). The Pip cohort experienced a 49% lower risk of 7-day readmission (relative risk [RR] 0.51, 95% CI 0.11-2.31; P=.38) and a 17% lower risk of 30-day readmission (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.30-2.31; P=.73), though these did not reach statistical significance. Both cohorts had similar 30-day emergency department returns (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.56-2.01, P=.85).

conclusionsPip is a novel mobile DHP combining human HCs and perioperative optimization content that is feasible to engage patients in their perioperative journey and is associated with reduced hospital LOS. Further studies assessing the impact on clinical and patient-reported outcomes from the use of Pip or similar DHPs HC combinations during the perioperative journey are required.

Indexed as

digital health solutionfeasibilitylength of stay reductionpatient engagementpatient satisfactionperioperative medicine

Identifiers

PMID38573737
PMCPMC11027047
OpenAlexW4391331542

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.