Cited by 19Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsAsthma and respiratory diseasesTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Feasibility, Efficacy, and Efficiency of eHealth-Supported Pediatric Asthma Care: Six-Month Quasi-Experimental Single-Arm Pretest-Posttest Study

Open access
van der Kamp, Mattienne, Reimering Hartgerink, Pamela, Driessen, Jean, Thio, Bernard, Hermens, Hermie, Tabak, Monique·2021·JMIR Formative Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Early detection of loss of asthma control can effectively reduce the burden of the disease. However, broad implementation in clinical practice has not been accomplished so far. We are in need of research investigating the operationalization of eHealth pediatric asthma care in practice, which can provide the most potential benefits in terms of adoption, efficiency, and effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the technical and clinical feasibility, including an exploration of the efficacy and cost-efficiency, of an eHealth program implemented in daily clinical pediatric asthma practice. METHODS: We designed an eHealth-supported pediatric asthma program facilitating early detection of loss of asthma control while increasing symptom awareness and self-management. In the 6-month program, asthma control was monitored by 4 health care professionals (HCPs) by using objective home measurements and the web-based Puffer app to allow timely medical anticipation and prevent treatment delay. Technical feasibility was assessed by technology use, system usability, and technology acceptance. Clinical feasibility was assessed by participation and patient-reported health and care outcomes and via a focus group with HCPs regarding their experiences of implementing eHealth in daily practice. The efficacy and cost-efficiency were explored by comparing pretest-posttest program differences in asthma outcomes (asthma control, lung function, and therapy adherence) and medical consumption. RESULTS: Of 41 children, 35 children with moderate-to-severe asthma volunteered for participation. With regard to technical feasibility, the Puffer app scored a good usability score of 78 on the System Usability Scale and a score of 70 for technology acceptance on a scale of 1 to 100. Approximately 75% (18/24) of the children indicated that eHealth helped them to control their asthma during the program. HCPs indicated that home measurements and real time communication enabled them to make safe and substantiated medical decisions during symptom manifestations. With an average time commitment of 15 minutes by patients, eHealth care led to a 80% gross reduction (from €71,784 to €14,018, US $1=€0.85) in health care utilization, 8.6% increase (from 18.6 to 20.2, P=.40) in asthma control, 25.0% increase (from 2.8 to 3.5, P=.04) in the self-management level, and 20.4% improved (from 71.2 to 76.8, P=.02) therapy adherence. CONCLUSIONS: eHealth asthma care seems to be technically and clinically feasible, enables safe remote care, and seems to be beneficial for pediatric asthma care in terms of health outcomes and health care utilization. Follow-up research should focus on targeted effectiveness studies with the lessons learned, while also enabling individualization of eHealth for personalized health care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/24634

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [29]Oliveira T Martins M Literature review of information technology adoption models at firm level Electron J Inf Syst Eval 2011 1 1 2021-07-08 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258821009_Literature_Review_of_Information_Technology_Adoption_Models_at_Firm_Level

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van der Kamp, M., Reimering Hartgerink, P., Driessen, J., Thio, B., Hermens, H., & Tabak, M.
Affiliations
  • Medisch Spectrum Twente (NL)
  • Roessingh Research and Development (NL)
Venue
JMIR Formative Research
Published
2021-07-26
Volume
5
Issue
7
Pages
e24634
ISSN
2561-326X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3163812540
Cited by
19
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3
FWCI
3.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Formative Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
childhood asthma, e-health, asthma control, asthma self-management, home spirometry, health care utilization, cost efficiency, technology acceptance, usability, health professionals' experiences, lung function, patient-reported outcomes

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