Carolina Bravo1, Cristina O'Donoghue2, Celia P Kaplan3, Judith Luce3, Elissa Ozanne4. 1. University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco General Hospital. 2. University of Illinois at Chicago, University of California, San Francisco. 3. University of California, San Francisco. 4. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice; University of California, San Francisco; University of California, San Francisco.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of mobile health (mHealth) tools has expanded rapidly but little research has been done on its acceptability by low-income, diverse, older patient populations. OBJECTIVE: To assess the attitudes of a diverse group of underserved women on the acceptability and usability of mHealth tools in a clinical setting using a breast health questionnaire application (app) at a public hospital mammography clinic. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in a breast-imaging center of an urban safety net institution from July-August 2012. Interviews included pre- and post-questions. Women completed the Athena breast health questionnaire app on an iPad and were asked about their experience and ways to improve the tool. RESULTS: Fifteen women age 45-79 years from diverse ethnic and educational backgrounds were interviewed. The majority of women, 11 of 15, preferred the Athena app over a paper version and all the women thought the app was easy to use. Two Spanish-speaking Latinas preferred paper; and two women, with limited mobile phone use, did not have a preference. Many women indicated that it would be necessary to have staff available for instruction and assistance if the app were to be implemented. CONCLUSIONS: mHealth tools are an acceptable, if not preferred, method of collecting health information for diverse, older, low-income women. Further studies are required to evaluate the reliability and accuracy of data collection using mHealth tools in underserved populations. mHealth tools should be explored as a novel way to engage diverse populations to improve clinical care and bridge gaps in health disparities.
BACKGROUND: Use of mobile health (mHealth) tools has expanded rapidly but little research has been done on its acceptability by low-income, diverse, older patient populations. OBJECTIVE: To assess the attitudes of a diverse group of underserved women on the acceptability and usability of mHealth tools in a clinical setting using a breast health questionnaire application (app) at a public hospital mammography clinic. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in a breast-imaging center of an urban safety net institution from July-August 2012. Interviews included pre- and post-questions. Women completed the Athena breast health questionnaire app on an iPad and were asked about their experience and ways to improve the tool. RESULTS: Fifteen women age 45-79 years from diverse ethnic and educational backgrounds were interviewed. The majority of women, 11 of 15, preferred the Athena app over a paper version and all the women thought the app was easy to use. Two Spanish-speaking Latinas preferred paper; and two women, with limited mobile phone use, did not have a preference. Many women indicated that it would be necessary to have staff available for instruction and assistance if the app were to be implemented. CONCLUSIONS: mHealth tools are an acceptable, if not preferred, method of collecting health information for diverse, older, low-income women. Further studies are required to evaluate the reliability and accuracy of data collection using mHealth tools in underserved populations. mHealth tools should be explored as a novel way to engage diverse populations to improve clinical care and bridge gaps in health disparities.
Entities:
Keywords:
breast cancer risk assessment; health disparities; mHealth
Authors: Genevieve Des Jarlais; Celia Patricia Kaplan; Jennifer S Haas; Steven E Gregorich; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: Prev Med Date: 2005-06-03 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: R Ballard-Barbash; S H Taplin; B C Yankaskas; V L Ernster; R D Rosenberg; P A Carney; W E Barlow; B M Geller; K Kerlikowske; B K Edwards; C F Lynch; N Urban; C A Chrvala; C R Key; S P Poplack; J K Worden; L G Kessler Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Elizabeth A Hahn; David Cella; Deborah Dobrez; Gail Shiomoto; Elizabeth Marcus; Samuel G Taylor; Mala Vohra; Chih-Hung Chang; Benjamin D Wright; John M Linacre; Barry D Weiss; Veronica Valenzuela; Hsaio-Lin Chiang; Kimberly Webster Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Douglas E Levy; Stacey D Byfield; Catherine B Comstock; Judy E Garber; Sapna Syngal; William H Crown; Alexandra E Shields Journal: Genet Med Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Sarah S Nouri; Julia Adler-Milstein; Crishyashi Thao; Prasad Acharya; Jill Barr-Walker; Urmimala Sarkar; Courtney Lyles Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: David P Miller; Kathryn E Weaver; L Doug Case; Donald Babcock; Donna Lawler; Nancy Denizard-Thompson; Michael P Pignone; John G Spangler Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Nicole M Alberts; Sherif M Badawy; Jerlym S Porter; Jane S Hankins; Jason Hodges; Jeremie H Estepp; Chinonyelum Nwosu; Hamda Khan; Matthew P Smeltzer; Ramin Homayouni; Sarah Norell; Lisa Klesges Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Rebecca Gunter; Sara Fernandes-Taylor; Andrea Mahnke; Lola Awoyinka; Chad Schroeder; Jason Wiseman; Sarah Sullivan; Kyla Bennett; Caprice Greenberg; K Craig Kent Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 4.773