MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804882295 · doi:10.2196/mhealth.9145

The Use of Mobile Health Applications to Improve Patient Experience: Cross-Sectional Study in Chinese Public Hospitals

2018· article· en· W2804882295 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chuntao Lu, Yinhuan Hu, Jinzhu Xie, Qiang Fu, Isabella Leigh, Samuel Governor, Guanping Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
KeywordsTest (biology)MedicineHealth caremHealthCross-sectional studyPublic healthChinaFamily medicineMobile appsNursingPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The proliferation of mobile health apps has greatly changed the way society accesses the health care industry. However, despite the widespread use of mobile health apps by patients in China, there has been little research that evaluates the effect of mobile health apps on patient experience during hospital visits. Objective: The purpose of our study was to examine whether the use of mobile health apps improves patient experience and to find out the difference in patient experience between users and nonusers and the characteristics associated with the users of these apps. Methods: We used the Chinese Outpatient Experience Questionnaire to survey patient experience. A sample of 300 outpatients was randomly selected from 3 comprehensive public hospitals (3 tertiary hospitals) in Hubei province, China. Each hospital randomly selected 50 respondents from mobile health app users and 50 from nonusers. A chi-square test was employed to compare the different categorical characteristics between mobile health app users and nonusers. A t test was used to test the significance in continuous variables between user scores and nonuser scores. Multiple linear regression was conducted to determine whether the use of mobile health apps during hospital visits was associated with patient experience. Results: The users and nonusers differed in age (χ22=12.2, P=.002), education (χ23=9.3, P=.03), living place (χ21=7.7, P=.006), and the need for specialists (χ24=11.0, P=.03). Compared with nonusers, mobile health app users in China were younger, better educated, living in urban areas, and had higher demands for specialists. In addition, mobile health app users gave significantly higher scores than nonusers in total patient experience scores (t298=3.919, P<.001), the 18 items and the 5 dimensions of physician-patient communication (t298=2.93, P=.004), health information (t298=3.556, P<.001), medical service fees (t298=3.991, P<.001), short-term outcome (t298=4.533, P<.001), and general satisfaction (t298=4.304, P<.001). Multiple linear regression results showed that the use of mobile health apps during hospital visits influenced patient experience (t289=3.143, P=.002). After controlling for other factors, it was shown that the use of mobile health apps increased the outpatient experience scores by 17.7%. Additional results from the study found that the self-rated health status (t289=3.746, P<.001) and monthly income of patients (t289=2.416, P=.02) influenced the patient experience as well. Conclusions: The use of mobile health apps could improve patient experience, especially with regard to accessing health information, making physician-patient communication more convenient, ensuring transparency in medical charge, and ameliorating short-term outcomes. All of these may contribute to positive health outcomes. Therefore, we should encourage the adoption of mobile health apps in health care settings so as to improve patient experience.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.406 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations119
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207