Interdisciplinary Mobile Health Model to Improve Clinical Care After Heart Transplantation: Implementation Strategy Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Solid organ transplantation could be the only life-saving treatment for end-stage heart failure. Nevertheless, multimorbidity and polypharmacy remain major problems after heart transplant. A technology-based behavioral intervention model was established to improve clinical practice in a heart transplant outpatient setting. To support the new strategy, the mHeart app, a mobile health (mHealth) tool, was developed for use by patients and providers. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to describe the implementation of the mHeart model and to outline the main facilitators identified when conceiving an mHealth approach. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the barriers, benefits, and willingness to use mHealth services reported by heart transplant recipients and cardiology providers. METHODS: This was an implementation strategy study directed by a multidisciplinary cardiology team conducted in four stages: design of the model and the software, development of the mHeart tool, interoperability among systems, and quality and security requirements. A mixed methods study design was applied combining a literature review, several surveys, interviews, and focus groups. The approach involved merging engineering and behavioral theory science. Participants were chronic-stage heart transplant recipients, patient associations, health providers, stakeholders, and diverse experts from the legal, data protection, and interoperability fields. RESULTS: An interdisciplinary and patient-centered process was applied to obtain a comprehensive care model. The heart transplant recipients (N=135) included in the study confirmed they had access to smartphones (132/135, 97.7%) and were willing to use the mHeart system (132/135, 97.7%). Based on stakeholder agreement (>75%, N=26), the major priorities identified of the mHealth approach were to improve therapy management, patient empowerment, and patient-provider interactions. Stakeholder agreement on the barriers to implementing the system was weak (<75%). Establishing the new model posed several challenges to the multidisciplinary team in charge. The main factors that needed to be overcome were ensuring data confidentiality, reducing workload, minimizing the digital divide, and increasing interoperability. Experts from various fields, scientific societies, and patient associations were essential to meet the quality requirements and the model scalability. CONCLUSIONS: The mHeart model will be applicable in distinct clinical and research contexts, and may inspire other cardiology health providers to create innovative ways to deal with therapeutic complexity and multimorbidity through health care systems. Professionals and patients are willing to use such innovative mHealth programs. The facilitators and key strategies described were needed for success in the implementation of the new holistic theory-based mHealth strategy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".