OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the (1) feasibility, (2) demand, (3) acceptability, and (4) usefulness of a mobile health (mHealth) application (app) compared with a written intervention distributed in a pediatric emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial with parents of children 12 years or younger presenting to the ED for nonurgent complaints. Parents were randomized to receive a (1) low literacy pediatric health book with video, (2) pediatric mHealth app, (3) both 1 and 2, or (4) car-seat safety video and handout (control). Demand, acceptability, and usefulness were assessed at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups. Modified intention-to-treat analysis was completed for proportional data. RESULTS: Ninety-eight parents completed randomization (83% approached). One or more follow-up was completed for 80.6% of parents. Only 57.1% downloaded the app. Parents used the app less than the book (35.1% vs 73.0%, P < 0.01), found the app to be harder to understand (26.0% vs 94.6%, P < 0.001) and less useful (37.8% vs 70.3%, P < 0.01), and were less likely to recommend the app to others (48.7% vs 100%, P < 0.01). No parent who received both book and app would prefer to have only the app; 88.9% of parents wanted either the book or both. CONCLUSIONS: There was low demand for an mHealth app with parents who prefer, accept, and use the book more. Giving written health information to vulnerable populations in a pediatric ED has the capacity to empower parents with knowledge to care for a child and potentially decrease future nonurgent ED use with translation into a larger study.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the (1) feasibility, (2) demand, (3) acceptability, and (4) usefulness of a mobile health (mHealth) application (app) compared with a written intervention distributed in a pediatric emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial with parents of children 12 years or younger presenting to the ED for nonurgent complaints. Parents were randomized to receive a (1) low literacy pediatric health book with video, (2) pediatric mHealth app, (3) both 1 and 2, or (4) car-seat safety video and handout (control). Demand, acceptability, and usefulness were assessed at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups. Modified intention-to-treat analysis was completed for proportional data. RESULTS: Ninety-eight parents completed randomization (83% approached). One or more follow-up was completed for 80.6% of parents. Only 57.1% downloaded the app. Parents used the app less than the book (35.1% vs 73.0%, P < 0.01), found the app to be harder to understand (26.0% vs 94.6%, P < 0.001) and less useful (37.8% vs 70.3%, P < 0.01), and were less likely to recommend the app to others (48.7% vs 100%, P < 0.01). No parent who received both book and app would prefer to have only the app; 88.9% of parents wanted either the book or both. CONCLUSIONS: There was low demand for an mHealth app with parents who prefer, accept, and use the book more. Giving written health information to vulnerable populations in a pediatric ED has the capacity to empower parents with knowledge to care for a child and potentially decrease future nonurgent ED use with translation into a larger study.
Authors: Emily Donovan; Christopher R Wilcox; Sanjay Patel; Alastair D Hay; Paul Little; Merlin L Willcox Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Madison Milne-Ives; Sarah Neill; Natasha Bayes; Mitch Blair; Jane Blewitt; Lucy Bray; Enitan D Carrol; Bernie Carter; Rob Dawson; Paul Dimitri; Monica Lakhanpaul; Damian Roland; Alison Tavare; Edward Meinert Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2021-06-30