Kathleen A Armstrong1, Peter C Coyte2, Mitchell Brown1, Brett Beber1, John L Semple3. 1. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada3Women's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
Importance: In the age of information and patient-centered care, new methods of delivering postoperative care must be developed and evaluated. Objective: To determine whether follow-up care delivered via a mobile app can be used to avert in-person follow-up care visits compared with conventional, in-person follow-up care in the first 30 days following ambulatory surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial was conducted from February 1 to August 31, 2015, among ambulatory patients undergoing breast reconstruction at an academic ambulatory care hospital. Patients were randomly assigned to receive follow-up care via a mobile app or at an in-person visit during the first 30 days after the operation. Analysis was intention-to-treat. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the number of in-person follow-up visits during the first 30 days after the operation. Secondary end points were the number of telephone calls and emails to health care professionals, patient-reported convenience and satisfaction scores, and rates of complications. Results: Of the 65 women in the study (mean [SD] age, 47.7 [13.4] years), 32 (49%) were in the mobile app group, and 33 (51%) were in the in-person follow-up care group. Those in the mobile app group attended a mean of 0.66 in-person visits, vs 1.64 in-person visits in the in-person follow-up care group, for a difference of 0.40 times fewer in-person visits (95% CI, 0.24-0.66; P < .001) and sent more emails to their health care professionals during the first 30 days after the operation (mean, 0.65 vs 0.15; incidence rate ratio, 4.13; 95% CI, 1.55-10.99; P = .005) than did patients in the in-person follow-up care group. This statistically significant difference was maintained at 3 months postoperatively. The mobile app group reported higher convenience scores than the in-person follow-up care group (incidence rate ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.09-1.77; P = .008). There was no difference between groups in the number of telephone communications, satisfaction scores, or complication rates. Conclusions and Relevance: Patients undergoingambulatory breast reconstruction can use follow-up care via a mobile app to avert in-person follow-up visits during the first 30 days after the operation. Mobile app follow-up care affects neither complication rates nor patient-reported satisfaction scores, but it improves patient-reported convenience scores. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02318953.
RCT Entities:
Importance: In the age of information and patient-centered care, new methods of delivering postoperative care must be developed and evaluated. Objective: To determine whether follow-up care delivered via a mobile app can be used to avert in-person follow-up care visits compared with conventional, in-person follow-up care in the first 30 days following ambulatory surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial was conducted from February 1 to August 31, 2015, among ambulatory patients undergoing breast reconstruction at an academic ambulatory care hospital. Patients were randomly assigned to receive follow-up care via a mobile app or at an in-person visit during the first 30 days after the operation. Analysis was intention-to-treat. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the number of in-person follow-up visits during the first 30 days after the operation. Secondary end points were the number of telephone calls and emails to health care professionals, patient-reported convenience and satisfaction scores, and rates of complications. Results: Of the 65 women in the study (mean [SD] age, 47.7 [13.4] years), 32 (49%) were in the mobile app group, and 33 (51%) were in the in-person follow-up care group. Those in the mobile app group attended a mean of 0.66 in-person visits, vs 1.64 in-person visits in the in-person follow-up care group, for a difference of 0.40 times fewer in-person visits (95% CI, 0.24-0.66; P < .001) and sent more emails to their health care professionals during the first 30 days after the operation (mean, 0.65 vs 0.15; incidence rate ratio, 4.13; 95% CI, 1.55-10.99; P = .005) than did patients in the in-person follow-up care group. This statistically significant difference was maintained at 3 months postoperatively. The mobile app group reported higher convenience scores than the in-person follow-up care group (incidence rate ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.09-1.77; P = .008). There was no difference between groups in the number of telephone communications, satisfaction scores, or complication rates. Conclusions and Relevance: Patients undergoing ambulatory breast reconstruction can use follow-up care via a mobile app to avert in-person follow-up visits during the first 30 days after the operation. Mobile app follow-up care affects neither complication rates nor patient-reported satisfaction scores, but it improves patient-reported convenience scores. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02318953.
Authors: Kristen Davidge; Kathleen A Armstrong; Mitchell Brown; Pamela Morgan; Mary Li; Lisa Cunningham; John L Semple Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Catherine L Webb; Carol L Waugh; Jim Grigsby; David Busenbark; Kaliope Berdusis; David J Sahn; Craig A Sable Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2013-07-13 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Robert E Bristow; Mariana L Zahurak; Marcela G del Carmen; Toby A Gordon; Harold E Fox; Edward L Trimble; F J Montz Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: S Potter; A Brigic; P F Whiting; S J Cawthorn; K N L Avery; J L Donovan; J M Blazeby Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Patrick C Sanger; Andrea Hartzler; Sarah M Han; Cheryl A L Armstrong; Mark R Stewart; Ross J Lordon; William B Lober; Heather L Evans Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Matthew M Symer; Jonathan S Abelson; Jeffrey Milsom; Bridget McClure; Heather L Yeo Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: James P Taylor; Miloslawa Stem; Sophia Y Chen; David Yu; Sandy H Fang; Susan L Gearhart; Bashar Safar; Jonathan E Efron Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Nikhil Panda; Ian Solsky; Becky Hawrusik; Gang Liu; Harrison Reeder; Stuart Lipsitz; Eesha V Desai; Kurt W Lowery; Kate Miller; Michele A Gadd; Carrie C Lubitz; Barbara L Smith; Michelle Specht; Jukka-Pekka Onnela; Alex B Haynes Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-08-18 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Thomas M Diehl; James R Barrett; Daniel E Abbott; Linda M Cherney Stafford; Bret M Hanlon; Qiuyu Yang; Rachel Van Doorn; Sharon M Weber; Corrine I Voils Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Thuss Sanguansak; Katharine E Morley; Michael G Morley; Kavin Thinkhamrop; Jaruwan Thuanman; Isha Agarwal Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Gregory Glauser; Zarina S Ali; Diana Gardiner; Ashwin G Ramayya; Rachel Pessoa; M Sean Grady; William C Welch; Eric L Zager; Esther Sim; Virginia Haughey; Brian Wells; Michael Restuccia; Gordon Tait; Glenn Fala; Neil R Malhotra Journal: Mhealth Date: 2019-09-24