An evaluation of patient ownership and use and acceptability of smartphone technology within the emergency department
Abstract
aEmergency Department, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh bEmergency Medicine Research Group Edinburgh (EMERGE), Department of Emergency Medicine, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK Correspondence to Matthew J. Reed, MA, MB, BChir, MD, MRCS, FCEM, Emergency Medicine Research Group Edinburgh (EMERGE), Department of Emergency Medicine, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh EH16 4SA, UK Tel: +44 131 242 1448; fax: +44 131 242 1339; e-mail: [email protected]
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
In previous work in ED patients, 74% found it acceptable to use a smartphone to monitor their health, 79% to use a medical device connecting to a smartphone to monitor their health, and 77% reported that they would feel confident to use such technology.
“This reinforces data from previous work in ED patients which showed that 74% found it acceptable to use a smartphone to monitor their health, 79% to use a medical device connecting to a smartphone to monitor their health, and 77% reported that they would feel confident to use such technology [27].”
From Multi-centre Randomised Controlled Trial of a Smartphone-based Event Recorder Alongside Standard Care Versus Standard Care for Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department with Palpitations and Pre-syncope: The IPED (Investigation of Palpitations in the ED) study (2019) · cites this paper as [27]
Previous research shows 64% of those aged 50-75 and 30% over 75 years of age own a smartphone.
“our previous research shows 64% of those aged 50–75 and 30% over 75 years of age own a smartphone [27]”
From Multi-centre Randomised Controlled Trial of a Smartphone-based Event Recorder Alongside Standard Care Versus Standard Care for Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department with Palpitations and Pre-syncope: The IPED (Investigation of Palpitations in the ED) study (2019) · cites this paper as [27]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reed, M. J., Grubb, N. R., Lang, C. C., O'Brien, R., Simpson, K., Padarenga, M., Grant, A., Tuck, S., Keating, L., Coffey, F., et al. (2019) · EClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.02.005 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
“This reinforces data from previous work in ED patients which showed that 74% found it acceptable to use a smartphone to monitor their health, 79% to use a medical device connecting to a smartphone to monitor their health, and 77% reported that theywould feel confident to use such technology [27].”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationReed, M. J., Grubb, N. R., Lang, C. C., O’Brien, R., Simpson, K., Padarenga, M., Grant, A., & Tuck, S. (2018) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-018-3098-1 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Self-citationRole for artificial intelligence in respiratory diseases—chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Carlin, C. M., Taylor, A., van Loon, I., Mcdowell, G., Burns, S., McGinness, P., & Lowe, D. J. (2021) · Journal of Hospital Management and Health Policy · doi:10.21037/jhmhp-20-119 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
“Expanding patient ownership of smartphones and acceptance of health monitoring and digital selfmanagement of COPD is notable (69,70).”
BackgroundProspective trial on telemonitoring of geriatric cancer patients using handheld devices
Buergy, D., Siefert, V., Neumaier, C., Ganslandt, T., Sperk, E., Blessing, M., Hesser, J., Welzel, G., Wenz, F. K., & Giordano, F. A. (2019) · Strahlentherapie und Onkologie · doi:10.1007/s00066-019-01548-0 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Kronborg, T., Hangaard, S., Laursen, S. H., Hæsum, L. K. E., Egmose, J., Bender, C., Secher, P. H., Hejlesen, O. K., & Udsen, F. W. (2025) · Respiratory Care · doi:10.1089/respcare.12611 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“…sector (eg, smartphones and wear-ables) which, combined with a trend of seeking to increase patient ownership and acceptance of health monitoring, 47,52 creates opportunities for more machine learning studies focusing on predicting individual risk of exacerbation or other adverse outcomes in COPD.”
Reed, M. J., Grubb, N. R., Lang, C., Goodacre, S. W., O’Brien, R., Weir, C. J., Thokala, P., Freeman, N., Blackstock, C., Dinsmore, L., et al. (2023) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069530 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Self-citationGrahamslaw, J., & McLaren, A. (2024) · Journal of research in nursing · doi:10.1177/17449871241259166
- Authors
- Summers, A. M., & Reed, M. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- Edinburgh Royal Infirmary (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Reed, Matthew J.
- ORCID
- Reed, Matthew J.
- Venue
- European Journal of Emergency Medicine
- Published
- 2018-06
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 224-225
- ISSN
- 0969-9546 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2801350313
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 1.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- European Journal of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Mobile Learning in Education
- Keywords
- smartphone technology, patient ownership, patient acceptance, emergency department, mobile health
- MeSH terms
- Smartphone, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Emergency Service, Hospital, Humans, Middle Aged, Ownership, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Patient Compliance, Surveys and Questionnaires, Scotland, Sex Factors, Urban Population, 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
