| Literature DB >> 30231056 |
Koushik Sinha Deb1, Anupriya Tuli2, Mamta Sood1, Rakesh Chadda1, Rohit Verma1, Saurabh Kumar1, Ragul Ganesh1, Pushpendra Singh2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobile application based delivery of psycho-social interventions may help reduce the treatment gap for severe mental illnesses (SMIs) and decrease the burden on caregivers. Apps developed in high income settings show effectiveness, but they suffer from lack of applicability in low resource scenarios due to the difference in technology penetration, affordability, and acceptance.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30231056 PMCID: PMC6145572 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203353
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Distribution and coding of focus group (FGD) participants (n = 22, care-providers = 15).
| Focus | Participants | Code | Relation of care-providers with patient |
|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | Caregivers = 4, | [F1C1]…[F1C4] | Parents [F1C1],[F2C2], |
| [F1T1] | |||
| [F1R1] | |||
| [F1P1] | |||
| F2 | Caregivers = 6, | [F2C1]…[F2C6] | Parents [F2C1]…[F2C6] |
| [F2T1] | |||
| [F1R1] | |||
| F3 | Caregivers = 5, | [F3C1]…[F3C5] | Parents [F3C1]…[F3C3], |
| [F3T1] | |||
| [F3R1] |
Demographic characteristics of participants & clinical profile of patients of SMI: (n = 88).
| Characteristics (values) | Patients | Care-providers |
|---|---|---|
| 33.3 (10.8) | 46.1 (12.2) | |
| 54 (61.4) | 37 (42.1) | |
| 40 (45.5) | 79 (89.8) | |
| No formal education | 2 (2.3) | 10 (11.5) |
| Formal Education | 51 (57.9) | 53 (60.2) |
| Graduate | 27 (30.7) | 19 (21.8) |
| Post-graduate | 8 (9.1) | 6 (6.9) |
| Never worked | 47(53.4) | 1 (1.1) |
| Unskilled/skilled work | 11 (12.5) | 26 (29.5) |
| Professional | 9 (10.2) | 15 (17.1) |
| Housewife | 10 (11.4) | 36 (40.9) |
| Other (students /retired/farmers, etc) | 11 (12.5) | 10 (11.4) |
| 20 (22.7) | 47 (53.4) | |
| Schizophrenia | 30 (34.1) | — |
| Other psychosis | 34 (38.6) | |
| Bipolar disorder | 24(27.3) | |
| Continuous | 64 (72.7) | — |
| Episodic | 24 (27.3) | |
| 23.8 (8.2) | — | |
| 7.5 (3.5, 14) | — | |
| 5(3, 10) | — | |
All values as n(%) unless specified otherwise.
* Employment is defined as an income earning job outside the home and excludes the occupational categories of home-maker and student.
Mobile technology usage of patients and caregivers of SMI: (n = 88).
| Characteristics (values) | Patients | Care-providers |
|---|---|---|
| No Phone | 11 (12.5) | 3 (3.4) |
| Simple Phone | 49 (55.7) | 51 (57.9) |
| Smartphone | 34 (38.6) | 28 (31.8) |
| Android | 20/28 (71.4) | 26/34 (76.5) |
| iOS | 1/28 (3.6) | 1/34 (2.9) |
| Windows | 1/28 (3.6) | 1/34 (2.9) |
| Unaware | 6/28 (21.4) | 6/34 (17.7) |
| Internet | 23/28 (82.1) | 27/34 (79.4) |
| 25/28 (89.3) | 21/34 (61.8) | |
| 23/28 (82.1) | 21/34 (61.8) | |
| Games | 20/28 (71.4) | 15/34 (44.1) |
| Camera | 56/77 (72.7) | 55/85 (64.7) |
| GPS | 16/28 (57.1) | 18/34 (52.9) |
| Accelerometer | 5/28 (17.9) | 8/34 (23.6) |
| HR Sensor | 4/28 (14.3) | 6/34 (17.7) |
* N = Number of persons with relevant phone type.
Usage and attitude towards mobile based health technologies in caregivers of SMI: (n = 88).
| Parameters | Values: |
|---|---|
| Has access to internet | 28/88 (31.8) |
| Has access to internet over landline phone | 14/88 (15.9) |
| Has access to internet over mobile phone | 27/88 (30.7) |
| Downloads apps on smartphone | 24/34 (70.6) |
| Number of apps downloaded in past month: median (Range) | 2 (0-10) |
| Number of health apps downloaded ever: median (Range) | 0 (0-3) |
| Used a smartphone to access health information | 19/34 (55.9) |
| Used a smartphone to access health services (appointments/test results) | 16/34 (47.1) |
| Wants access to information related to patient’s illness via | 83/88 (94.3) |
| Wants access to information related to patient’s illness via | 57/88 (64.8) |
| Willing to | 57/88 (64.8) |
| Willing to use the “app” on a | 55/88 (62.5) |
| Thinks such “app” will be | 54/88 (61.4) |
| Think such“apps” will add to the | 13/88 (14.8) |
* N = Number of persons with relevant phone type.
Iterative inductive thematic analysis of three FGDs resulted in eight major themes.
The table presents the themes, each supported by an example quote from the data set. To present our inferences in the findings section, we further group these themes into three categories: (1) scope of mobile apps in improving patient-care; (2) scope of mobile apps in empowering caregivers; and (3) caregivers’ apprehensions about using mobile based apps for healthcare.
| Theme | Definition | Example (Quotes from FGDs) |
|---|---|---|
| Medication | Patient’s reluctance to take medication and possible methods to promote medication adherence. | |
| Tracking Health Improvement | Cases where tracking patient’s health would prove to be helpful and beneficial (e.g., impact of the treatment). | |
| Connectivity with Doctors | The need for a ubiquitous communication link with the doctors/experts. | |
| Act of Caregiving | Various challenges of caregiving and strategies devised to cope with the given challenges. | |
| Empower the caregiver | Need for support in caregiving including authentic information, emotional support, and more. | |
| Stigma | Societal stigma associated with mental illnesses and how it affects the daily lives of patients and their families. | |
| Affordability, Availability, & Access | Various practical challenges pertaining to affordability, access, and availability of the required solution. | |
| Literacy | Challenges of local vernaculars, proficiency with English and digital illiteracy. |