Yun Jiang1, Susan M Sereika2, Annette DeVito Dabbs3, Steven M Handler4, Elizabeth A Schlenk5. 1. University of Michigan School of Nursing, 400 N Ingalls, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States. Electronic address: jiangyu@umich.edu. 2. University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing, 3500 Victoria St., Pittsburgh, PA 15261, United States,. Electronic address: ssereika@pitt.edu. 3. University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing, 3500 Victoria St., Pittsburgh, PA 15261, United States,. Electronic address: ajdst42@pitt.edu. 4. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, M-172 200 Meyran Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, United States,. Electronic address: handler@pitt.edu. 5. University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing, 3500 Victoria St., Pittsburgh, PA 15261, United States,. Electronic address: els100@pitt.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lung transplant recipients (LTR) experience problems recognizing and reporting critical condition changes during their daily health self-monitoring. Pocket PATH(®), a mobile health application, was designed to provide automatic feedback messages to LTR to guide decisions for detecting and reporting critical values of health indicators. OBJECTIVES: To examine the degree to which LTR followed decision support messages to report recorded critical values, and to explore predictors of appropriately following technology decision support by reporting critical values during the first year after transplantation. METHODS: A cross-sectional correlational study was conducted to analyze existing data from 96 LTR who used the Pocket PATH for daily health self-monitoring. When a critical value is entered, the device automatically generated a feedback message to guide LTR about when and what to report to their transplant coordinators. Their socio-demographics and clinical characteristics were obtained before discharge. Their use of Pocket PATH for health self-monitoring during 12 months was categorized as low (≤25% of days), moderate (>25% to ≤75% of days), and high (>75% of days) use. Following technology decision support was defined by the total number of critical feedback messages appropriately handled divided by the total number of critical feedback messages generated. This variable was dichotomized by whether or not all (100%) feedback messages were appropriately followed. Binary logistic regression was used to explore predictors of appropriately following decision support. RESULTS: Of the 96 participants, 53 had at least 1 critical feedback message generated during 12 months. Of these 53 participants, the average message response rate was 90% and 33 (62%) followed 100% decision support. LTR who moderately used Pocket PATH (n=23) were less likely to follow technology decision support than the high (odds ratio [OR]=0.11, p=0.02) and low (OR=0.04, p=0.02) use groups. The odds of following decision support were reduced in LTR whose income met basic needs (OR=0.01, p=0.01) or who had longer hospital stays (OR=0.94, p=0.004). A significant interaction was found between gender and past technology experience (OR=0.21, p=0.03), suggesting that with increased past technology experience, the odds of following decision support to report all critical values decreased in men but increased in women. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of LTR responded appropriately to mobile technology-based decision support for reporting recorded critical values. Appropriately following technology decision support was associated with gender, income, experience with technology, length of hospital stay, and frequency of use of technology for self-monitoring. Clinicians should monitor LTR, who are at risk for poor reporting of recorded critical values, more vigilantly even when LTR are provided with mobile technology decision support.
BACKGROUND: Lung transplant recipients (LTR) experience problems recognizing and reporting critical condition changes during their daily health self-monitoring. Pocket PATH(®), a mobile health application, was designed to provide automatic feedback messages to LTR to guide decisions for detecting and reporting critical values of health indicators. OBJECTIVES: To examine the degree to which LTR followed decision support messages to report recorded critical values, and to explore predictors of appropriately following technology decision support by reporting critical values during the first year after transplantation. METHODS: A cross-sectional correlational study was conducted to analyze existing data from 96 LTR who used the Pocket PATH for daily health self-monitoring. When a critical value is entered, the device automatically generated a feedback message to guide LTR about when and what to report to their transplant coordinators. Their socio-demographics and clinical characteristics were obtained before discharge. Their use of Pocket PATH for health self-monitoring during 12 months was categorized as low (≤25% of days), moderate (>25% to ≤75% of days), and high (>75% of days) use. Following technology decision support was defined by the total number of critical feedback messages appropriately handled divided by the total number of critical feedback messages generated. This variable was dichotomized by whether or not all (100%) feedback messages were appropriately followed. Binary logistic regression was used to explore predictors of appropriately following decision support. RESULTS: Of the 96 participants, 53 had at least 1 critical feedback message generated during 12 months. Of these 53 participants, the average message response rate was 90% and 33 (62%) followed 100% decision support. LTR who moderately used Pocket PATH (n=23) were less likely to follow technology decision support than the high (odds ratio [OR]=0.11, p=0.02) and low (OR=0.04, p=0.02) use groups. The odds of following decision support were reduced in LTR whose income met basic needs (OR=0.01, p=0.01) or who had longer hospital stays (OR=0.94, p=0.004). A significant interaction was found between gender and past technology experience (OR=0.21, p=0.03), suggesting that with increased past technology experience, the odds of following decision support to report all critical values decreased in men but increased in women. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of LTR responded appropriately to mobile technology-based decision support for reporting recorded critical values. Appropriately following technology decision support was associated with gender, income, experience with technology, length of hospital stay, and frequency of use of technology for self-monitoring. Clinicians should monitor LTR, who are at risk for poor reporting of recorded critical values, more vigilantly even when LTR are provided with mobile technology decision support.
Authors: Hojung J Yoon; Hojung Joseph Yoon; Hongfei Guo; Marshall Hertz; Marshall I Hertz; Stanley Finkelstein; Stanley M Finkelstein Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2008-11-06
Authors: Christopher M Burton; Martin Iversen; Jørn Carlsen; Jann Mortensen; Claus B Andersen; Daniel Steinbrüchel; Thomas Scheike Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 10.247
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: Vincent G Valentine; Meera R Gupta; James E Walker; Leonardo Seoane; Ryan W Bonvillain; Gisele A Lombard; David Weill; Gundeep S Dhillon Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 10.247
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: Ann K Eno; Jessica M Ruck; Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen; Madeleine M Waldram; Alvin G Thomas; Tanjala S Purnell; Jacqueline M Garonzik Wang; Allan B Massie; Fawaz Al Almmary; Lisa M Cooper; Dorry L Segev; Michael A Levan; Macey L Henderson Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: João Moura; Ana Margarida Pisco Almeida; Fátima Roque; Adolfo Figueiras; Maria Teresa Herdeiro Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: James N Fleming; McLean D Pollock; David J Taber; John W McGillicuddy; Clarissa J Diamantidis; Sharron L Docherty; Eileen T Chambers Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2022-02-21