MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411978664 · doi:10.2196/76978

Patient-Reported Experiences With Long-Term Lifestyle Self-Monitoring in Heart Disease: Mixed Methods Study

2025· article· en· W4411978664 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
W F Goevaerts, Nicole Tenbult, Willem J. Kop, Hareld Kemps, Yuan Lü

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintTerm (time)MedicineGerontologyEnvironmental healthComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Lifestyle behaviors strongly predict cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, emphasizing the need for strategies that support sustained lifestyle changes in patients with cardiac disease. Digital health solutions, including wearables, mobile apps, and chatbots, enable self-monitoring of lifestyle behaviors but often face challenges with engagement and usability. While self-monitoring systems can increase awareness and accountability, maintaining user engagement remains crucial for their effectiveness in promoting behavior change and long-term improvements. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated patient experiences with a lifestyle monitoring system combining a web application, health watch, and chatbot. We explored facilitators of and barriers to long-term adherence and assessed the impact of self-monitoring on lifestyle awareness and behavior change in patients with cardiac disease. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study with patients who used an eHealth platform for self-monitoring lifestyle behaviors during 1 year following an invasive cardiac procedure. This study included 100 patients (mean age 61.6, SD 10.4 y; n=88, 88% male) comprising both completers (n=57, 57%) and dropouts (n=43, 43%). Patients engaged in quarterly phone interviews and questionnaires and completed an end-of-study questionnaire. Completers participated in a structured evaluation interview; dropouts provided a reason for discontinuation. Quantitative and qualitative data analyses focused on usability, long-term adherence facilitators and barriers, lifestyle awareness, and behavior change. RESULTS: Patients completed 157 quarterly questionnaires (n=145, 92.4% by completers and n=12, 7.6% by dropouts) and 217 phone interviews (n=171, 78.8% with completers and n=46, 21.2% with dropouts). In total, 77 patients (of whom n=54, 70% were completers and n=23, 30% were dropouts) completed end-of-study questionnaires, and 98% (56/57) of completers participated in the evaluation interviews. Completers reported higher perceptions of the platform's usefulness, ease of use, and satisfaction (P<.001 in all cases) than dropouts. Dropout reasons linked to self-monitoring (34/43, 79%) included high self-report burden and dissatisfaction with the chatbot, poor overall usability experience, health watch technical challenges causing frustration, limited perceived usefulness, mental stress from self-monitoring, and low motivation. Key facilitators of long-term engagement included routine formation, structured reminders, and minimal effort associated with the wearable. Barriers included repetitive chatbot questions (causing cognitive burden) and technical issues with the health watch. Self-monitoring increased lifestyle awareness among completers, particularly regarding physical activity (25/56, 45%) and nutrition (29/56, 52%), with smaller effects for sleep quality (7/56, 13%) and mental stress (1/56, 2%). It facilitated behavior change in physical activity and nutrition (16/56, 29% each) and sleep quality (4/56, 7%) but not in mental stress. Adaptive personalization, mobile accessibility, and real-time feedback could improve adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Fostering routine formation while minimizing patient burden through personalized, flexible, and adaptive features is important for sustained patient engagement in eHealth monitoring systems. Enhancing relevance and usability while reducing complexity and technical barriers can optimize digital health tools and promote lasting behavior change. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s12872-023-03222-x.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.579
Teacher spread0.485 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→