ArticleRespiration; international review of thoracic diseases2024
Exploring Smartphone App Use in Older Adults with a Chronic Respiratory Disease: The biggest Problem I have Is I Don't Understand My Phone At All.
Article in Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn older people with a chronic respiratory disease, we explored (i) usual Smartphone application (App) use, (ii) the time taken to download and use an App, and (iii) changes in self-efficacy for downloading an App after a single practice session.
methodsParticipants were invited to attend one or two separate assessment sessions (Part A and B). Those who attended Part A had data pertaining to their App usage over the previous week extracted from their Smartphone. Those who attended Part B were asked to download and use a pedometer App and "think out loud" during the task. Before and after the task, participants rated their self-efficacy for downloading an App using a Visual Analogue Scale (0-10).
resultsTwenty-seven participants (mean ± SD 74 ± 5 years) completed Part A. Commonly used Apps related to communication (e.g., texting; median [interquartile range] 15 [9-25] min/day) and interest (e.g., news; 14 [4-50] min/day). Fifteen participants completed Part B (mean ± SD 73 ± 7 years). The median time taken to download and use the App was 24 (22-37) min. The "think out loud" data converged into four domains: (i) low self-efficacy for using and learning Apps; (ii) reliance on others for help; (iii) unpleasant emotional responses; and (iv) challenges due to changes associated with longevity. Self-efficacy increased by 4 (95% confidence interval: 3-6).
conclusionThis population used Apps mainly to facilitate social connection. It took participants almost half an hour to download and use an App, but a single practice session improved self-efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.