| Literature DB >> 31406843 |
Zhao Ni1, Changqing Liu2, Bei Wu3, Qing Yang1, Christian Douglas1, Ryan Jeffrey Shaw1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: With this study, we aimed to develop a mobile technology (mHealth) intervention to improve medication adherence among patients with coronary heart disease (CHD).Entities:
Keywords: China; Coronary disease; Medication adherence; Mobile applications; mHealth
Year: 2018 PMID: 31406843 PMCID: PMC6626280 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnss.2018.09.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Nurs Sci ISSN: 2352-0132
The comparison of the two phases.
| Phase 1 | Phase 2 | Rationale for change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Components | An exploratory randomized controlled trial + qualitative interviews. | Same as phase 1. | N/A |
| Duration | 30 days for each participants. | Same as phase 1. | N/A |
| Baseline data collection | A paper-based questionnaire with 23 items. | The same questionnaire was created in REDCap ( | Completing the paper-based questionnaire at hospital was not convenient for many participants. A hyperlink sent to WeChat provided participants more flexible time. Participants could complete the survey at anytime when they were free. |
| Reminder | Participants in the experimental group received a reminder for every dose of medication. | Participants in the experimental group received a daily reminder. | In China, participants had the right to decide when to take each dose of their medications, although the frequency of each medication was prescribed by physicians. Because of this reason, many participants could not tell the researchers when they were going to take their medications at the enrollment. |
| Educational materials | All participants received them every two days at a random time between 8am and 10pm. | All participants received them every five days at a random time between 9am and 9pm. | Receiving educational materials every other day is too frequent for elderly participants to digest the included knowledge. Also, 10pm is a little bit late for many elderly participants to read educational materials. |
| Medication adherence measurement | The number of dosage taken divided by the number of dosage prescribed (percentage). | A standardized three-question scale named Voils Medication Non-Adherence Extent Scale (thereinafter named Voils scale). | Some participants forgot the number of dosage they taken, and others might lie about the number of dosages they taken. |
| Medication adherence collection | Participants reported every 3 days on WeChat. Researchers documented the data on paper. | The Voils scale was created in REDCap. A hyperlink of it was sent to participants on WeChat every 15 days. Participants reported medication adherence by clicking the hyperlink and filling the scale. | Reporting every 3 days is too frequent for many participants. |
| Health outcomes collection | Participants reported every 3 days on WeChat. Researchers documented the data on paper. | Within the Voils scale hyperlink, participants were asked to report their health outcomes. Participants reported them by clicking the hyperlink and filling SBP, DBP, and HR. | Reporting every 3 days is too frequent for many participants. |
| Interview | An interview invitation sent to the participants in the experimental group. Those who accepted were interviewed by phone call. | An interview invitation sent to all participants. Those who accepted were interviewed by phone call. | Given the small sample size, the research team wanted to hear feedback from participants. |
Baseline characteristics of samples in Phase 2 at enrollment [n (%)].
| Variable | All participants ( | Experimental ( | Control ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 29 (80.6) | 14 (77.8) | 15 (83.3) | 1.00 |
| Female | 7 (19.4) | 4 (22.2) | 3 (16.7) | |
| Han | 34 (94.4) | 16 (88.9) | 18 (100) | 0.49 |
| Zang | 1 (2.8) | 1 (5.6) | 0 | |
| Yi | 1 (2.8) | 1 (5.6) | 0 | |
| Married | 32 (88.9) | 15 (83.3) | 17 (94.4) | 0.74 |
| Divorced | 2 (5.6) | 2 (11.1) | 0 | |
| Widowed | 2 (5.6) | 1 (5.6) | 1 (5.6) | |
| Employed | 8 (22.2) | 4 (22.2) | 4 (22.2) | 0.42 |
| Self-employed | 2 (5.6) | 0 | 2 (11.1) | |
| Farmer | 1 (2.8) | 0 | 1 (5.6) | |
| Retired | 23 (63.9) | 12 (66.7) | 11 (61.1) | |
| Other | 2 (5.6) | 2 (11.1) | 0 | |
| < High school | 10 (27.8) | 1 (5.6) | 9 (50) | 0.04 |
| High school – Undergraduate | 17 (47.2) | 12 (66.7) | 5 (27.8) | |
| Undergraduate – Master's | 9 (25) | 5 (27.8) | 4 (22.2) | |
| <5 | 12 (33.3) | 6 (33.3) | 6 (33.3) | 0.70 |
| 5 – < 10 | 23 (63.9) | 11 (61.1) | 12 (66.7) | |
| ≥10 | 1 (2.8) | 1 (5.6) | 0 | |
| 35 (97.2) | 17 (94.4) | 18 (100) | 1.00 | |
| All covered | 11 (35.6) | 5 (27.8) | 6 (33.3) | 1.00 |
| Some covered | 19 (52.8) | 10 (55.6) | 9 (50) | |
| Not covered at all | 1 (2.8) | 0 | 1 (5.6) | |
| Do not know | 5 (13.9) | 3 (16.7) | 2 (11.1) | |
| Urban | 33 (91.7) | 17 (94.4) | 16 (88.9) | 1.00 |
| Rural | 3 (8.3) | 1 (5.6) | 2 (11.1) | |
| Living alone | 3 (8.3) | 2 (11.1) | 1 (5.6) | 0.79 |
| With spouse | 29 (80.6) | 15 (83.3) | 14 (77.8) | |
| With child | 2 (5.6) | 0 | 2 (11.1) | |
| With others | 2 (5.6) | 1 (5.6) | 1 (5.6) | |
| <1 | 7 (20) | 3 (16.7) | 4 (22.2) | 0.77 |
| ≥1 | 28 (80) | 14 (77.8) | 14 (77.8) | |
| Daily | 28 (80) | 14 (77.8) | 14 (77.8) | 0.86 |
| Weekly | 2 (5.7) | 1 (5.6) | 1 (5.6) | |
| Monthly | 1 (2.9) | 1 (5.6) | 0 | |
| Never | 2 (5.7) | 1 (5.6) | 1 (5.6) | |
| Other | 2 (5.7) | 0 | 2 (11.1) | |
| <8147 | 16 (44.4) | 9 (50) | 7 (38.9) | 0.85 |
| 8147–13,575 | 8 (22.2) | 2 (11.1) | 6 (33.3) | |
| 13,575–18,100 | 4 (11.1) | 3 (16.7) | 1 (5.6) | |
| ≥18,100 | 5 (13.9) | 3 (16.7) | 2 (11.1) | |
| Refuse to answer | 3 (8.3) | 1 (5.6) | 2 (11.1) | |
| Good | 13 (36.1) | 6 (33.3) | 7 (38.9) | 0.92 |
| Fair | 18 (50) | 10 (55.6) | 8 (44.4) | |
| Bad | 5 (13.9) | 2 (11.1) | 3 (16.7) | |
| 66.8 ± 9.7 | 63.1 ± 7.4 | 70.4 ± 10.4 | 0.02 | |
| 165.0 ± 6.6 | 163.8 ± 6.5 | 166.1 ± 6.6 | 0.31 | |
Note: * One participant's information is missing.
Fig. 1Study sample flow chart of Phase 2.
Fig. 2Comparison of changes of medication non-adherence between groups.
Compare the baseline and unadjusted changes in medication adherence and health outcomes between two arms (Mean ± SD).
| Variable | Experimental ( | Control ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 6.28 ± 2.14 | 6.28 ± 1.99 | 0 (34) | 1.00 |
| 15 days-baseline | −1.00 ± 2.67 | −1.44 ± 1.59 | −0.56 (29) | 0.58 |
| 30 days-baseline | −1.35 ± 2.18 | −0.69 ± 1.58 | 1.00 (31) | 0.33 |
| Baseline | 67.13 ± 9.23 | 76.82 ± 14.32 | 2.24 (30) | 0.03 |
| 15 days-baseline | 4.92 ± 13.42 | −6.12 ± 12.14 | −2.36 (28) | 0.03 |
| 30 days-baseline | 4.64 ± 11.89 | −8.06 ± 13.66 | −2.73 (29) | 0.01 |
| Baseline | 125.7 ± 11.80 | 123.60 ± 14.27 | −0.47 (33) | 0.64 |
| 15 days-baseline | −1.33 ± 18.51 | −0.83 ± 19.93 | 0.07 (31) | 0.94 |
| 30 days-baseline | 0.93 ± 10.40 | −3.76 ± 25.72 | −0.66 (30) | 0.51 |
| Baseline | 74.24 ± 10.07 | 73.78 ± 8.45 | −0.15 (33) | 0.88 |
| 15 days-baseline | 7.50 ± 17.43 | 4.50 ± 16.78 | −0.51 (32) | 0.62 |
| 30 days-baseline | 0.81 ± 10.38 | 8.71 ± 21.43 | 1.33 (31) | 0.19 |
Fig. 3Comparison of changes of systolic blood pressure between groups.
Fig. 4Comparison of changes of heart rate between groups.
Fig. 5Comparison of changes of diastolic blood pressure between groups.
Results of the mixed-effects model with a random intercept and slope for between-group differences in the trajectory of change of outcomes.
| Item | Medication non-adherence | Diastolic blood pressure | Systolic blood pressure | Heart rate | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter estimation | Parameter estimation | Parameter estimation | Parameter estimation | |||||
| Intercept | 6.75 | 0.003 | 76.99 | <0.0001 | 118.24 | <0.0001 | 85.03 | <0.0001 |
| Group (reference group = control) | 0.14 | 0.84 | 2.37 | 0.52 | 1.78 | 0.72 | −8.43 | 0.05 |
| Weight | −0.01 | 0.68 | −0.04 | 0.81 | 0.08 | 0.71 | −0.14 | 0.46 |
| Time | −0.02 | 0.26 | 0.29 | 0.04 | −0.13 | 0.40 | −0.27 | 0.01 |
| Group × time | −0.03 | 0.28 | −0.27 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.46 | 0.39 | 0.02 |
Qualitative themes (n = 10).
| Theme | Description | Verbatim Exemplars |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Cue to action | The intervention reminded participants to take medications. | “After receiving the reminder, I immediately check whether I have taken today's medications.” |
| 2. Useful | Participants felt the reminders were a useful tool for taking medication on time. | “The reminders you sent are helpful because sometimes I will forget taking my medications at noon.” |
| 3. Cost-effective | Participants felt this mHealth program would not increase costs. | “I have Wi-Fi at home.” “Receiving information from you does not increase costs at all. You don't need to worry.” |
| 4. Tailoring | Participants wanted to receive tailored reminders and educational materials. | “I want to receive specific information about my disease.” |
| 5. Caring | Participants felt they were cared by others. | “Receiving the reminders makes me feel that someone is caring about me.” “Receiving reminders from a healthcare provider is very good, …, it makes me feel that I am cared by professionals. It strengthened my confidence of fighting against the heart disease.” |