Six-Month Pilot Testing of a Digital Health Tool to Support Effective Self-Care in People With Heart Failure: Mixed Methods Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Digital tools may support people to self-manage their heart failure (HF). Having previously outlined the human-centered design development of a digital tool to support self-care of HF, the next step was to pilot the tool over a period of time to establish people's acceptance of it in practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to conduct an observational pilot study to examine the usability, adherence, and feasibility of a digital health tool for HF within the Irish health care system. METHODS: A total of 19 participants with HF were provided with a digital tool comprising a mobile app and the Fitbit Charge 4 and Aria Air smart scales for a period of 6 months. Changes to their self-care were assessed before and after the study with the 9-item European HF Self-care Behavior Scale (EHFScBS) and the Minnesota Living with HF Questionnaire (MLwHFQ) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test. After the study, 3 usability questionnaires were implemented and descriptively analyzed: the System Usability Scale (SUS), Wearable Technology Motivation Scale (WTMS), and Comfort Rating Scale (CRS). Participants also undertook a semistructured interview regarding their experiences with the digital tool. Interviews were analyzed deductively using the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: Participants wore their devices for an average of 86.2% of the days in the 6-month testing period ranging from 40.6% to 98%. Although improvements in the EHFScBS and MLwHFQ were seen, these changes were not significant (P=.10 and P=.70, respectively, where P>.03, after a Bonferroni correction). SUS results suggest that the usability of this system was not acceptable with a median score of 58.8 (IQR 55.0-60.0; range 45.0-67.5). Participants demonstrated a strong motivation to use the system according to the WTMS (median 6.0, IQR 5.0-7.0; range 1.0-7.0), whereas the Fitbit was considered very comfortable as demonstrated by the low CRS results (median 0.0, IQR 0.0-0.0; range 0.0-2.0). According to participant interviews, the digital tool supported self-management through increased knowledge, improved awareness, decision-making, and confidence in their own data, and improving their social support through a feeling of comfort in being watched. CONCLUSIONS: The digital health tool demonstrated high levels of adherence and acceptance among participants. Although the SUS results suggest low usability, this may be explained by participants uncertainty that they were using it fully, rather than it being unusable, especially given the experiences documented in their interviews. The digital tool targeted key self-management behaviors and feelings of social support. However, a number of changes to the tool, and the health service, are required before it can be implemented at scale. A full-scale feasibility trial conducted at a wider level is required to fully determine its potential effectiveness and wider implementation needs.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».