MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3001470843 · doi:10.2196/14599

Factors Influencing Motivation and Engagement in Mobile Health Among Patients With Sickle Cell Disease in Low-Prevalence, High-Income Countries: Qualitative Exploration of Patient Requirements

2020· article· en· W3001470843 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
David-Zacharie Issom, André Henriksen, Ashenafi Zebene Woldaregay, Jessica Rochat, Christian Lovis, Gunnar Hartvigsen

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Human Factors · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésmHealthThematic analysisDiseasePsychological interventionMedicineQualitative researchHealth careGerontologyFamily medicineNursingPathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a hematological genetic disease affecting over 25 million people worldwide. The main clinical manifestations of SCD, hemolytic anemia and vaso-occlusion, lead to chronic pain and organ damages. With recent advances in childhood care, high-income countries have seen SCD drift from a disease of early childhood mortality to a neglected chronic disease of adulthood. In particular, coordinated, preventive, and comprehensive care for adults with SCD is largely underresourced. Consequently, patients are left to self-manage. Mobile health (mHealth) apps for chronic disease self-management are now flooding app stores. However, evidence remains unclear about their effectiveness, and the literature indicates low user engagement and poor adoption rates. Finally, few apps have been developed for people with SCD and none encompasses their numerous and complex self-care management needs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify factors that may influence the long-term engagement and user adoption of mHealth among the particularly isolated community of adult patients with SCD living in low-prevalence, high-income countries. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Analysis was informed by the Braun and Clarke framework and mapped to the COM-B model (capability, opportunity, motivation, and behavior). Results were classified into high-level functional requirements (FRs) and nonfunctional requirements (NFRs) to guide the development of future mHealth interventions. RESULTS: Overall, 6 males and 4 females were interviewed (aged between 21 and 55 years). Thirty FRs and 31 NFRs were extracted from the analysis. Most participants (8/10) were concerned about increasing their physical capabilities being able to stop pain symptoms quickly. Regarding the psychological capability aspects, all interviewees desired to receive trustworthy feedback on their self-care management practices. About their physical opportunities, most (7/10) expressed a strong desire to receive alerts when they would reach their own physiological limitations (ie, during physical activity). Concerning social opportunity, most (9/10) reported wanting to learn about the self-care practices of other patients. Relating to motivational aspects, many interviewees (6/10) stressed their need to learn how to avoid the symptoms and live as normal a life as possible. Finally, NFRs included inconspicuousness and customizability of user experience, automatic data collection, data shareability, and data privacy. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that motivation and engagement with mHealth technologies among the studied population could be increased by providing features that clearly benefit them. Self-management support and self-care decision aid are patients' major demands. As the complexity of SCD self-management requires a high cognitive load, pervasive health technologies such as wearable sensors, implantable devices, or inconspicuous conversational user interfaces should be explored to ease it. Some of the required technologies already exist but must be integrated, bundled, adapted, or improved to meet the specific needs of people with SCD.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,128
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,721

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,301
Écart entre enseignants0,271 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations24
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR Human FactorsMême sujetHemoglobinopathies and Related DisordersTravaux en français237 207