| Literature DB >> 25562145 |
Leila Pfaeffli Dale1, Robyn Whittaker2, Helen Eyles3, Cliona Ni Mhurchu4, Kylie Ball5, Natasha Smith6, Ralph Maddison7.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is crucial in the management of cardiovascular disease (CVD), yet attendance is poor. Mobile technology (mHealth) offers a potential solution to increase reach of CR. This paper presents two development studies to determine mobile phone usage in adults with CVD and to evaluate the acceptability of an mHealth healthy eating CR program.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25562145 PMCID: PMC4251404 DOI: 10.3390/jpm4010088
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pers Med ISSN: 2075-4426
Figure 1The mHealth Development and Evaluation Framework [22].
Example text messages.
| Theme | Social cognitive theory construct | Message |
|---|---|---|
| Lowering my blood cholesterol | Self-regulation | Have you started to look at your nutrition labels? |
| Choosing healthy meats and vegetarian alternatives | Goal setting/Social persuasion | Try replacing red meat with fish. Canned fish counts. |
| Choosing healthy milk and milk products | Mastery experience | Small changes add up—ask the main shopper to switch from butter to a margarine blend. Less cost to your wallet and health! |
| Packaged foods | Outcome expectation | Think you don’t have the willpower to avoid treat foods or takeaways? Think of your body, your mind, your family. |
Participant demographics for the formative research (Study 1) and pilot (Study 2).
| Characteristic | Study 1 ( | Study 2 ( |
|---|---|---|
| Male | 50 | 10 |
| Female | 24 | 10 |
| ≤40 | 3 | 5 |
| 41–50 | 4 | 4 |
| 51–60 | 19 | 4 |
| 61–70 | 29 | 4 |
| 71–80 | 17 | 3 |
| ≥81 | 2 | 0 |
| New Zealand European | 50 | 14 |
| Māori | 16 | 2 |
| Pacific Islander | 0 | 3 |
| Other | 7 | 4 |
a Totals some participants identified with more than one ethnicity; b Ethnicity data missing for 1 participant.
Mobile phone features used.
| Feature a | N = 74 (%) |
|---|---|
| Phone calls | 65 (88%) |
| Text messaging | 63 (85%) |
| Receive videos and/or photos | 17 (23%) |
| Internet search | 17 (23%) |
| Applications | 14 (19%) |
| Instant messaging | 5 (7%) |
| Social networks | 6 (8%) |
a Participants were able to select all options that apply.
Most useful cardiac rehabilitation components.
| Advice | N (%) |
|---|---|
| Healthy meal ideas and recipes | 47 (64%) |
| Practical ideas to manage stress | 40 (54%) |
| Setting goals | 19 (26%) |
| Steps to achieve goals | 20 (27%) |
| Exercise ideas | 48 (65%) |
| How to overcome cigarette cravings | 1 (1%) |
| How to remember to take your medications | 10 (14%) |
| Healthy eating tips for takeaways and dining out | 33 (45%) |
Nutrition program survey response data (N = 20).
| Please rate the following according to whether you liked or disliked them | Liked | Disliked | No comment | Didn’t use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ideas on how to eat healthier | 19 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Information on the benefits of healthy eating | 18 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Information on cooking healthy meals | 16 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| Receiving motivational messages | 15 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Being supported to feel like I could make these changes | 13 | 1 | 4 | 2 |
| Feeling like I belonged/like there were others going through the same thing as me | 11 | 1 | 6 | 2 |
| Receiving lots of text messages | 10 | 6 | 4 | 0 |
| The website | 10 | 1 | 3 | 6 |
| The time of day messages were sent | 9 | 2 | 9 | 0 |
| Seeing videos from health professionals | 9 | 0 | 2 | 9 |
| Being able to see ‘my goals’ on the website | 8 | 1 | 3 | 8 |
| Seeing videos from people like me | 4 | 0 | 6 | 10 |
Descriptive summary of Heart Healthy Eating Self-efficacy scale and subscales.
| Scale (Mean ± SD) | Pre-intervention | Post-intervention | Difference (Post–Pre) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Heart healthy eating | 4.59 ± 53 | 4.76 ± 66 | 0.20 ± 55 |
| Environmental | 4.22 ± 71 | 4.83 ± 70 | 0.62 b ± 74 |
| Total self-efficacy a | 4.41 ± 59 | 4.79 ± 66 | 0.39 b ± 64 |
| Outcome expectancy | 5.22 ± 77 | 5.37 ± 82 | 0.15 ± 65 |
a Total self-efficacy is an average of heart healthy eating and environmental self-efficacy subscales combined; b Statistically significant difference was detected using both parametric and non-parametric tests (p < 0.05).