Assessing the Use of Mobile Technology in Adult Asthma Patients: Remote Observational Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The National Institutes of Health Morbidity and Mortality report indicates that as high as 15.6% of the US population may have asthma. Non-adherence to daily controller medications is a common problem that has been reported to be responsible for 60% of asthma-related hospitalizations. Mean levels of adherence for asthma medications is estimated to be as low as 22%. Evidence suggests that patients over-report medication use when asked to self-estimate their adherence. Therefore, objective measurements of adherence to medicine is necessary. Objective: The primary purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility of using the BreatheSmart platform for measuring adherence and whether it improves medication adherence to patients presenting with asthma symptoms who are managed on inhaled corticosteroids. Understanding how patients use the BreatheSmart Platform at home is essential to assess its feasibility as a solution to improve medication adherence in patients using daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). We anticipate this approach can be applied to real-world environments as a cost-effective solution to improve treatment plan compliance and patient self management. Secondary objectives include assessment of real-time controller medication adherence and lung function as well as frequency of rescue medication use. The result of this study allowed us to understand the process of implementing the BreatheSmart technology for management of asthma patients and facilitated the pathway to our current larger clinical trial: “Assessing the Use of Mobile Technology in Adult Asthma Patients: An Observational Study.” Methods: This is a virtual six-month feasibility study of 20 adults and adolescent with an asthma diagnosis, using ICS for at least 3 months. Participants were recruited in the United States through social media and web-based recruitment. All participants received wireless Bluetooth-enabled inhaler sensors that track medication usage, a mSpirometer capable of clinical-grade lung function measurements, and downloaded the BreatheSmart mobile application which transmits data to a secure server. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two arms regarding lung function measurements in order to assess usability of two different techniques. Usability was assessed by patient questionnaires and opened ended question sessions. Both primary and secondary analyses are based on intention-to-treat (ITT). Results: 100% of participants interviewed (n=18) wanted to continue using the BreatheSmart app after the study, and would recommend it to a friend with asthma. 93% of study participants responded positively to their overall experience setting up the app and hardware. Participants had 84.58% adherence to scheduled doses using their HeroTracker sensors over a 6 month period. Rescue medication usage decreased by 60% in the first 3 months and 95.3% through 6 months. We observed an 86% retention of study participants for the 6-month study duration. (Commonly reported 90-day user retention rates of fitness and health apps: 27–30%. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that a mobile platform phone application is feasible in enabling patient asthma self-management utilizing a phone-based platform of digital devices and application. Study findings demonstrated a 48% lift in medication adherence from the baseline national mean medication compliance among asthma patients. Furthermore, use of the BreatheSmart platform was associated with a significant decline in rescue medication usage. Qualitative study participant feedback revealed that high patient retention and motivation to continue on the BreatheSmart platform was influenced by the reliability, simplicity and user friendliness of the platform’s design. More than 50% of the study participants viewed the interactions with the study investigator as a true value add, promoting accountability and enhanced care management. These findings should be further researched with incorporation of clinician remote monitoring to evaluate the impact of the BreatheSmart platform in enhanced clinical decision making at the point of care or between clinic visits.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».