Nurses’ Use of mHealth Apps for Chronic Conditions: Cross-Sectional Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) is increasingly used to support public health practice, as it has positive benefits such as enhancing self-efficacy and facilitating chronic disease management. Yet, relatively few studies have explored the use of mHealth apps among nurses, despite their important role in caring for patients with and at risk of chronic conditions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to explore nurses' use of mHealth apps to support adults with or at risk of chronic conditions and understand the factors that influence technology adoption. METHODS: A web-based cross-sectional survey was conducted between September 2022 and January 2023. The survey was shared via social media and professional nursing organizations to Australian nurses caring for adults with or at risk of chronic conditions. RESULTS: A total of 158 responses were included in the analysis. More than two-thirds (n=108, 68.4%) of respondents reported that they personally used at least 1 mHealth app. Over half (n=83, 52.5% to n=108, 68.4%) reported they use mHealth apps at least a few times a month for clinical purposes. Logistic regression demonstrated that performance expectancy (P=.04), facilitating condition (P=.05), and personal use of mHealth apps (P=.05) were significantly associated with mHealth app recommendation. In contrast, effort expectancy (P=.09) and social influence (P=.46) did not have a significant influence on whether respondents recommended mHealth apps to patients. The inability to identify the quality of mHealth apps and the lack of access to mobile devices or internet were the most common barriers to mHealth app recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: While nurses use mHealth apps personally, there is potential to increase their clinical application. Given the challenges reported in appraising and assessing mHealth apps, app regulation and upskilling nurses will help to integrate mHealth apps into usual patient care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".