Cited by 38Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationInflammatory Bowel Disease

eHealth for inflammatory bowel disease self-management – the patient perspective

Con, Danny, Jackson, Belinda, Gray, Kathleen, De Cruz, Peter·2017·Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract

Background Electronic health (eHealth) solutions may help address the growing pressure on IBD outpatient services as they encompass a component of self-management. However, information regarding patients' attitudes towards the use of eHealth solutions in IBD is lacking. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate eHealth technology use and explore the perspectives of IBD patients on what constitutes the ideal eHealth solution to facilitate self-management. Methods A mixed methods qualitative and quantitative analysis of the outcomes of a discussion forum and an online survey conducted at a tertiary hospital in Melbourne, Australia between November 2015 and January 2016 was undertaken. Results Eighteen IBD patients and parents participated in the discussion forum. IBD patients expressed interest in eHealth tools that are convenient and improve access to care, communication, disease monitoring and adherence. Eighty six patients with IBD responded to the online survey. A majority of patients owned a mobile phone (98.8%), had access to the internet (97.7%), and felt confident entering data onto a phone or computer (73.3%). Most patients (98.8%) were willing to use at least one form of information and communication technology to help manage their IBD. Smartphone apps and internet websites were the two most preferred technologies to facilitate IBD self-management. Conclusions This study demonstrates the willifngness of patients to engage with eHealth as a potential solution to…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00365521.2017.1333625

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Con, D., Jackson, B., Gray, K., & De Cruz, P.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Austin Hospital (AU)
  • Department of Gastroenterology, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia;
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2017-06-09
Volume
52
Issue
9
Pages
1-8
ISSN
  • 0036-5521 (ISSN-L)
  • 1502-7708
OpenAlex
W2623267126
Cited by
38
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3
FWCI
4.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Gutsy Group
  • Ferring
  • AbbVie
  • University of Melbourne
  • Gastroenterological Society of Australia
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Keywords
e-health, inflammatory bowel disease, self-management, patient perspectives, patient attitudes, mobile application, technology adoption, disease surveillance, medication adherence, health care access, patient engagement
MeSH terms
Self-Management, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Attitude to Health, Australia, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Logistic Models, Telemedicine, Disease Management, Internet, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review