Sara Belle Donevant1, Robin Dawson Estrada1, Joan Marie Culley1, Brian Habing2, Swann Arp Adams3. 1. College of Nursing, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA. 2. Department of Statistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA. 3. College of Nursing/Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA.
Abstract
Objectives: Limited data are available on the correlation of mHealth features and statistically significant outcomes. We sought to identify and analyze: types and categories of features; frequency and number of features; and relationship of statistically significant outcomes by type, frequency, and number of features. Materials and Methods: This search included primary articles focused on app-based interventions in managing chronic respiratory diseases, diabetes, and hypertension. The initial search yielded 3622 studies with 70 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. We used thematic analysis to identify 9 features within the studies. Results: Employing existing terminology, we classified the 9 features as passive or interactive. Passive features included: 1) one-way communication; 2) mobile diary; 3) Bluetooth technology; and 4) reminders. Interactive features included: 1) interactive prompts; 2) upload of biometric measurements; 3) action treatment plan/personalized health goals; 4) 2-way communication; and 5) clinical decision support system. Discussion: Each feature was included in only one-third of the studies with a mean of 2.6 mHealth features per study. Studies with statistically significant outcomes used a higher combination of passive and interactive features (69%). In contrast, studies without statistically significant outcomes exclusively used a higher frequency of passive features (46%). Inclusion of behavior change features (ie, plan/goals and mobile diary) were correlated with a higher incident of statistically significant outcomes (100%, 77%). Conclusion: This exploration is the first step in identifying how types and categories of features impact outcomes. While the findings are inconclusive due to lack of homogeneity, this provides a foundation for future feature analysis.
Objectives: Limited data are available on the correlation of mHealth features and statistically significant outcomes. We sought to identify and analyze: types and categories of features; frequency and number of features; and relationship of statistically significant outcomes by type, frequency, and number of features. Materials and Methods: This search included primary articles focused on app-based interventions in managing chronic respiratory diseases, diabetes, and hypertension. The initial search yielded 3622 studies with 70 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. We used thematic analysis to identify 9 features within the studies. Results: Employing existing terminology, we classified the 9 features as passive or interactive. Passive features included: 1) one-way communication; 2) mobile diary; 3) Bluetooth technology; and 4) reminders. Interactive features included: 1) interactive prompts; 2) upload of biometric measurements; 3) action treatment plan/personalized health goals; 4) 2-way communication; and 5) clinical decision support system. Discussion: Each feature was included in only one-third of the studies with a mean of 2.6 mHealth features per study. Studies with statistically significant outcomes used a higher combination of passive and interactive features (69%). In contrast, studies without statistically significant outcomes exclusively used a higher frequency of passive features (46%). Inclusion of behavior change features (ie, plan/goals and mobile diary) were correlated with a higher incident of statistically significant outcomes (100%, 77%). Conclusion: This exploration is the first step in identifying how types and categories of features impact outcomes. While the findings are inconclusive due to lack of homogeneity, this provides a foundation for future feature analysis.
Authors: Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam; Louis W Niessen; Uta Ferrari; Liaquat Ali; Jochen Seissler; Andreas Lechner Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: M Vervloet; L van Dijk; J Santen-Reestman; B van Vlijmen; P van Wingerden; M L Bouvy; D H de Bakker Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Maria C E Rossi; Antonio Nicolucci; Paolo Di Bartolo; Daniela Bruttomesso; Angela Girelli; Francisco J Ampudia; David Kerr; Antonio Ceriello; Carmen De La Questa Mayor; Fabio Pellegrini; David Horwitz; Giacomo Vespasiani Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-10-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Robin M Dawson; Tisha M Felder; Sara B Donevant; Karen Kane McDonnell; Edward B Card; Callie Campbell King; Sue P Heiney Journal: Nurs Inq Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 2.393
Authors: Meghan Reading Turchioe; Elizabeth M Heitkemper; Maichou Lor; Marissa Burgermaster; Lena Mamykina Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2019-08-02 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Elliot G Mitchell; Elizabeth M Heitkemper; Marissa Burgermaster; Matthew E Levine; Yishen Miao; Maria L Hwang; Pooja M Desai; Andrea Cassells; Jonathan N Tobin; Esteban G Tabak; David J Albers; Arlene M Smaldone; Lena Mamykina Journal: Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factor Comput Syst Date: 2021-05-07
Authors: Jennifer Dickman Portz; Kelsey Ford; David B Bekelman; Rebecca S Boxer; Jean S Kutner; Sara Czaja; Kira Elsbernd; Sheana Bull Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2019-09-17 Impact factor: 2.947