Yun Jiang1, Susan M Sereika2, Annette DeVito Dabbs2, Steven M Handler3, Elizabeth A Schlenk2. 1. University of Michigan School of Nursing , 400 N Ingalls St., Ann Arbor, MI. 2. University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing , 3500 Victoria St., Pittsburgh, PA. 3. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine , M-172 200 Meyran Ave, Pittsburgh, PA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe lung transplant recipients (LTRs') acceptance and use of mobile technology for health self-monitoring during the first year post-transplantation, and explore correlates of the use of technology in the 0 to 2, >2 to ≤6, >6 to ≤12, and 0 to 12 months. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from 96 LTR assigned to use Pocket PATH(®), a smartphone application, for daily health self-monitoring in a randomized controlled trial. Use of Pocket PATH was categorized as low, moderate, and high use. Proportional odds models for ordinal logistic regression were employed to explore correlates of use of technology. RESULTS: LTR reported high acceptance of Pocket PATH at baseline. However, acceptance was not associated with actual use over the 12 months (p=0.45~0.96). Actual use decreased across time intervals (p<0.001). Increased self-care agency was associated with the increased odds of higher use in women (p=0.03) and those less satisfied with technology training (p=0.02) in the first 2 months. Higher use from >2 to ≤6 months was associated with greater satisfaction with technology training (OR=3.37, p=0.01) and shorter length of hospital stay (OR=0.98, p=0.02). Higher use from >6 to ≤12 months was associated with older age (OR=1.05, p=0.02), lower psychological distress (OR=0.43, p=0.02), and better physical functioning (OR=1.09, p=0.01). Higher use over 12 months was also associated with older age (OR=1.05, p=0.007), better physical functioning (OR=1.13, p=0.001), and greater satisfaction with technology training (OR=3.05, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Correlates were different for short- and long-term use of mobile technology for health self-monitoring in the first year post-transplantation. It is important to follow up with LTR with longer hospital stay, poor physical functioning, and psychological distress, providing ongoing education to improve their long-term use of technology for health self-monitoring.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To describe lung transplant recipients (LTRs') acceptance and use of mobile technology for health self-monitoring during the first year post-transplantation, and explore correlates of the use of technology in the 0 to 2, >2 to ≤6, >6 to ≤12, and 0 to 12 months. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from 96 LTR assigned to use Pocket PATH(®), a smartphone application, for daily health self-monitoring in a randomized controlled trial. Use of Pocket PATH was categorized as low, moderate, and high use. Proportional odds models for ordinal logistic regression were employed to explore correlates of use of technology. RESULTS: LTR reported high acceptance of Pocket PATH at baseline. However, acceptance was not associated with actual use over the 12 months (p=0.45~0.96). Actual use decreased across time intervals (p<0.001). Increased self-care agency was associated with the increased odds of higher use in women (p=0.03) and those less satisfied with technology training (p=0.02) in the first 2 months. Higher use from >2 to ≤6 months was associated with greater satisfaction with technology training (OR=3.37, p=0.01) and shorter length of hospital stay (OR=0.98, p=0.02). Higher use from >6 to ≤12 months was associated with older age (OR=1.05, p=0.02), lower psychological distress (OR=0.43, p=0.02), and better physical functioning (OR=1.09, p=0.01). Higher use over 12 months was also associated with older age (OR=1.05, p=0.007), better physical functioning (OR=1.13, p=0.001), and greater satisfaction with technology training (OR=3.05, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Correlates were different for short- and long-term use of mobile technology for health self-monitoring in the first year post-transplantation. It is important to follow up with LTR with longer hospital stay, poor physical functioning, and psychological distress, providing ongoing education to improve their long-term use of technology for health self-monitoring.
Entities:
Keywords:
Mobile applications; lung transplantation; patient compliance; self-care; telemedicine
Authors: Annette De Vito Dabbs; Leslie A Hoffman; Valerie Swigart; Mary Beth Happ; Aldo T Iacono; James H Dauber Journal: ANS Adv Nurs Sci Date: 2004 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 1.824
Authors: Roger D Yusen; Leah B Edwards; Anna Y Kucheryavaya; Christian Benden; Anne I Dipchand; Samuel B Goldfarb; Bronwyn J Levvey; Lars H Lund; Bruno Meiser; Joseph W Rossano; Josef Stehlik Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Mary Amanda Dew; Andrea F Dimartini; Annette De Vito Dabbs; Rachelle Zomak; Sabina De Geest; Fabienne Dobbels; Larissa Myaskovsky; Galen E Switzer; Mark Unruh; Jennifer L Steel; Robert L Kormos; Kenneth R McCurry Journal: Transplantation Date: 2008-01-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Holly Jimison; Paul Gorman; Susan Woods; Peggy Nygren; Miranda Walker; Susan Norris; William Hersh Journal: Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) Date: 2008-11
Authors: Annette DeVito Dabbs; Mi-Kyung Song; Brad Myers; Robert P Hawkins; Jill Aubrecht; Alex Begey; Mary Connolly; Ruosha Li; Joseph M Pilewski; Christian A Bermudez; Mary Amanda Dew Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Christiane Kugler; Jens Gottlieb; Martin Dierich; Axel Haverich; Martin Strueber; Tobias Welte; Andre Simon Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2010 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Emily M Rosenberger; Mary Amanda Dew; Andrea F DiMartini; Annette J DeVito Dabbs; Roger D Yusen Journal: Thorac Surg Clin Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 1.750
Authors: Jacqueline Lorene Bender; Rossini Ying Kwan Yue; Matthew Jason To; Laetitia Deacken; Alejandro R Jadad Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-12-23 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Lu Hu; Annette DeVito Dabbs; Mary Amanda Dew; Susan M Sereika; Jennifer H Lingler Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2017-06-11 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: E M Rosenberger; A J DeVito Dabbs; A F DiMartini; D P Landsittel; J M Pilewski; M A Dew Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Youmin Cho; Yun Jiang; Huiting Zhang; Marcelline Ruth Harris; Yang Gong; Ellen Lavoie Smith Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-03-12 Impact factor: 5.428