| Literature DB >> 25421307 |
Yvonne K Bartlett1, Annette Haywood2, Claire L Bentley3, Jack Parker4, Mark S Hawley5, Gail A Mountain6, Susan Mawson7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Technology has the potential to provide support for self-management to people with congestive heart failure (CHF). This paper describes the results of a realist evaluation of the SMART Personalised Self-Management System (PSMS) for CHF.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25421307 PMCID: PMC4246999 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-014-0109-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak ISSN: 1472-6947 Impact factor: 2.796
Figure 1The realist evaluation process (adapted with permission from [ 15 ]).
Figure 2Hardware and system structure for the CHF PSMS, mobile device, touch screen computer and sensors.
Figure 3Software components of the CHF PSMS with actions available to the user.
Hypotheses defined in terms of context, mechanisms and outcomes (CMOs) with related sources and findings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1. Limited access to technical support during deployment of the system | Telephone support on weekdays, potential for face to face visits | M1. Systems that have technical problems can result in low usability, and poor engagement. Therefore the system will be glitch free and fully functioning. | There were technical problems and usability was reduced. | O1. Engagement with system. Data sources: Interview; system data; System Usability Scale. | Low SUS scores, interview data showed users were engaged with the content. |
| C2. Differing levels of computer literacy amongst users | All participants had high levels of computer literacy | M2. User-centred design process undertaken to identify a touch screen system with simple instructions designed to be operated by those with little or no computer knowledge | Could not be tested | O2. All are able to use the system and continue to use it for the duration of the evaluation. Data sources: Interview; System Usability Scale. | This was supported, but all participants had high computer literacy. |
| C3. Over exertion on days when users are feeling well can result in a negative impact on subsequent days (the ‘over activity/ rest cycle’) | Not supported, at this stage | M3. Pacing is taught by the system by providing feedback on activity, and showing users weekly plans, highlighting instances of over activity. | Activity planner was not used as intended. Following initial set up participants did not keep it up to date resulting in an inaccurate record | O3. Balance between activity and rest. Data sources: Interview; system data | Not supported, further research needed to investigate context and potential mechanisms |
| C4. Loss of fitness and sedentary lifestyle of users resulting in fewer hobbies and interests | Not supported with the post-deployment interviews, but had been mentioned in CMO development interviews and focus groups | M4. Walking intervention to increase physical fitness | Most people reported completing the walking intervention, although not all walks were recorded by the system | O4. Ability to walk further. Data sources: Walking data, interview | Some reported improvements, objective data was unavailable due to technical problems. |
| C5. Lack of recognition in users of worsening condition resulting in exacerbations of symptoms and potential for admission to hospital | Not supported, participants were stable and had good awareness of symptoms that could lead to exacerbation | M5. Increasing awareness of blood pressure, weight and symptoms through self-monitoring and tailored feedback provision | Some participants reported this in the interviews | O5. Improved symptom control thus reducing need for health professional involvement. Data sources: Interview; system data | Could not be objectively tested. One person reported going to the Dr as a result of high blood pressure readings. |
| C6. Lack of knowledge as user is left alone to self-manage when their heart failure is stable, resulting in fewer opportunities for the health care professional to educate patients. | Although participants acknowledged they self-managed their heart failure, it was felt that as they were stable, this was appropriate, most participants had high levels of heart failure related knowledge | M6. Information and advice section contains educational material and quizzes, feedback from this and other sections should increase awareness. | Information was looked at and quizzes completed pre and post-deployment | O6. Increased levels of knowledge about self management. Data sources: Interview; Knowledge of Heart Failure questionnaire (TELER method). | Significant increase in knowledge between pre and post-deployment quizzes for those with low levels initially |
| C7. Self-management of heart failure involves engagement with a variety of lifestyle changes, e.g., adhering to a medication regime, restrictions to diet, monitoring weight and taking regular exercise. | Not challenged by participants. Interview data suggests participants felt behaviour change was important. | M7. The SMART2 system incorporates the following behaviour change techniques: 1. Self-monitoring of symptoms; 2. setting and reviewing goals related to user’s lifestyle; 3. providing regular feedback on performance. | Some problems with self-monitoring. Goal-setting generally supported, feedback not always attended to. Interview data reported that the system did increase walking behaviour. | O7. Behaviour change that is sustainable over the long term. Data source: Interview. | Could not be objectively tested. Interview data suggested participants perceived this as possible, if current problems were addressed. |
TELER® quiz style indicator for heart failure knowledge
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Not assessed | None | Not assessed |
| 1 | 14-15 | p ≤0.025 | Very poor knowledge |
| 2 | 12-13 | 0.025 < p ≤0.16522 | Moderately poor knowledge |
| 3 | 9-11 | 0.165 < p ≤0.67033 | Knowledge indeterminate |
| 4 | 7-8 | 0.025 < p ≤0.16544 | Knowledge moderately good |
| 5 | 0-6 | p ≤0.025 | Knowledge very good |
Results of the realist evaluation
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| The CHF PSMS is used in a home-setting | Hardware is acceptable to people in their homes, and fits with their everyday life | Engagement and happiness to use the system |
| People with CHF may have co-morbidities that will affect PSMS use | Increased pain or discomfort while walking | Participant won’t complete the recommended walk, no improvement and perhaps decline in physical activity or increase in weight. |
|
| ||
|
|
| O1a. Poor SUS score |
|
| ||
|
| M2. User-centred design process undertaken to identify a touch screen system with simple instructions designed to be operated by those with little or no computer knowledge | O2. All are able to use the system and continue to use it for the duration of the evaluation. |
|
| M4. Walking intervention encouraged goal setting and increased activity |
|
|
| M5. Increasing awareness of blood pressure, weight and symptoms through self-monitoring and tailored feedback provision |
|
|
| M6. Information and advice section contains educational material and quizzes, feedback from this and other sections should increase awareness. | O6. Increased levels of knowledge about self-management. Data sources: Interview; Knowledge of Heart Failure questionnaire (TELER© method). |
| C7. Self-management of heart failure involves engagement with a variety of lifestyle changes, e.g., adhering to a medication regime, restrictions to diet, monitoring weight and taking regular exercise. |
|
|
|
| ||
| C3. Over exertion on days when users are feeling well can result in a negative impact on subsequent days (the ‘over activity/ rest cycle) | M3. Pacing is taught by the system by providing feedback on activity, and showing users weekly plans, highlighting instances of over activity. | O3. Balance between activity and rest. Data sources: Interview; system data |
Bold text identifies the components of the CMOs that have been revised.
System usability scale [25]
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
| 102 | 75 | Usability score above average |
| 103 | 30 | Below average |
| 104 | 60 | Below average |
| 105 | 52.5 | Below average |
| 106 | 47.50 | Below average |
| 107 | 47.50 | Below average |
| 108 | 77.5 | Usability score above average |
1A score of 68 is considered average.