MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4210749010 · doi:10.2196/34294

Patients’ Experiences of Using a Smartphone App After Cardiac Rehabilitation: Qualitative Study

2022· article· en· W4210749010 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pernille Lunde, Asta Bye, Kari Anette Bruusgaard, Elisabet Hellem, Birgitta Blakstad Nilsson

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Human Factors · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCardiac Health and Mental Health
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésThematic analysisPsychological interventionmHealthQualitative researchMedicineRehabilitationPhysical therapyPsychologyClinical psychologyNursing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a crucial part of the treatment of patients with cardiac diseases, and adherence to healthy behavior is a prerequisite to improve long-term prognosis. Unfortunately, adherence to healthy behavior adapted in CR is challenging for many cardiac patients in the long term. Recently, we demonstrated that follow-up conducted via an app for 1 year significantly improved adherence to healthy behavior after CR. To increase the knowledge and understanding of mobile Health (mHealth) interventions that can promote acceptance and adherence, qualitative research investigating patients' experiences with these interventions is warranted. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to investigate patient experiences with individualized long-term follow-up conducted via an app for 1 year and their thoughts about what features promoted adherence to healthy behavior after CR. The purpose was to increase the understanding of significant findings previously reported and to guide future development of similar interventions in the field of adherence. METHODS: A qualitative study with individual interviews was conducted from November 2018 to May 2019. A thematic interview guide was used when conducting the semistructured in-depth interviews. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed successively during the period in which the interviews were conducted. Texts were managed and systematized by NVivo. Interviews were analyzed by qualitative content analysis. Codes and themes were inductively developed. RESULTS: Ten patients who had participated in a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of follow-up conducted via an app on adherence to healthy behavior after CR were included. The median patient age was 65 years (range 46-72 years), and both genders were represented. The analysis resulted in the following 4 themes describing the patients' experiences: (1) The person behind the app is crucial for motivation and adherence; (2) The app as a commitment; (3) The app as a path to independence; and (4) Suggestions for improvements. Features experienced as beneficial to promote adherence were individualized feedback and the use of goal setting. The significance of the person behind the app (the supervisor) who provided individualized feedback was a consistent finding. This person seemed to promote motivation in general and to enable other known behavioral change techniques. CONCLUSIONS: The person behind the app (the supervisor) seems to be one of the most significant success factors in promoting adherence to healthy behavior after CR. This indicates that a health care provider must actively participate in a patient's process of adherence to healthy behavior, even when using interventions, including an app. Future development of interventions in the field of adherence should strive to create tools that enable an ongoing collaborative relationship between the patient and the health care provider. The follow-up should be based on the patient's own goals, and individualized feedback should be provided.

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)0,001
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: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,023
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,543

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
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 savante0,0000,000
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 Opus0,038
Tête enseignante GPT0,409
Écart entre enseignants0,371 · 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'étudeQualitatif
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

Citations18
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR Human FactorsMême sujetCardiac Health and Mental HealthTravaux en français237 207