CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13

Six-Month Pilot Testing of a Digital Health Tool to Support Effective Self-Care in People With Heart Failure: Mixed Methods Study

Keogh, Alison, Brennan, Carol, Johnston, William, Dickson, Jane, Leslie, Stephen J, Burke, David, Megyesi, Peter, Caulfield, Brian·2024·JMIR Formative Research
DOI 10.2196/52442PMC PMC10959238

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Digital tools may support people to self-manage their heart failure (HF). Having previously outlined the human-centered design development of a digital tool to support self-care of HF, the next step was to pilot the tool over a period of time to establish people’s acceptance of it in practice. Objective: This study aims to conduct an observational pilot study to examine the usability, adherence, and feasibility of a digital health tool for HF within the Irish health care system. Methods: A total of 19 participants with HF were provided with a digital tool comprising a mobile app and the Fitbit Charge 4 and Aria Air smart scales for a period of 6 months. Changes to their self-care were assessed before and after the study with the 9-item European HF Self-care Behavior Scale (EHFScBS) and the Minnesota Living with HF Questionnaire (MLwHFQ) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test. After the study, 3 usability questionnaires were implemented and descriptively analyzed: the System Usability Scale (SUS), Wearable Technology Motivation Scale (WTMS), and Comfort Rating Scale (CRS). Participants also undertook a semistructured interview regarding their experiences with the digital tool. Interviews were analyzed deductively using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Results: Participants wore their devices for an average of 86.2% of the days in the 6-month testing period ranging from 40.6% to 98%. Although improvements in the EHFScBS and MLwHFQ were seen, these changes were not significant (P=.10 and P=.70, respectively, where P>.03, after a Bonferroni correction). SUS results suggest that the usability of this system was not acceptable with a median score of 58.8 (IQR 55.0-60.0; range 45.0-67.5). Participants demonstrated a strong motivation to use the system according to the WTMS (median 6.0, IQR 5.0-7.0; range 1.0-7.0), whereas the Fitbit was considered very comfortable as demonstrated by the low CRS results (median 0.0, IQR 0.0-0.0; range 0.0-2.0). According to participant interviews, the digital tool supported self-management through increased knowledge, improved awareness, decision-making, and confidence in their own data, and improving their social support through a feeling of comfort in being watched. Conclusions: The digital health tool demonstrated high levels of adherence and acceptance among participants. Although the SUS results suggest low usability, this may be explained by participants uncertainty that they were using it fully, rather than it being unusable, especially given the experiences documented in their interviews. The digital tool targeted key self-management behaviors and feelings of social support. However, a number of changes to the tool, and the health service, are required before it can be implemented at scale. A full-scale feasibility trial conducted at a wider level is required to fully determine its potential effectiveness and wider implementation needs.

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 · 10.2196/52442

Cites

4 of 4 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: 36

  1. [1]Ruppar TM Cooper PS Johnson ED Riegel B Self-care interventions for adults with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol J Adv Nurs 2019 75 3 676 682 10.1111/jan.13903 30397943 30397943 PMC6392180 · DOI
  2. [2]Kiyarosta N Ghezeljeh TN Naghashzadeh F Feizi M Haghani S The effect of using smartphone applications on self-care in patients with heart failure Nurs Pract Today 2020 7 4 311 321 10.18502/npt.v7i4.4041 · DOI
  3. [3]Athilingam P Jenkins B Mobile phone apps to support heart failure self-care management: integrative review JMIR Cardio 2018 2 1 e10057 10.2196/10057 31758762 v2i1e10057 31758762 PMC6834210 · DOI
  4. [4]Riccardi M Sammartino AM Piepoli M Adamo M Pagnesi M Rosano G Metra M von Haehling S Tomasoni D Heart failure: an update from the last years and a look at the near future ESC Heart Fail 2022 9 6 3667 3693 10.1002/ehf2.14257 36546712 36546712 PMC9773737 · DOI
  5. [5]Jaarsma T Hill L Bayes-Genis A La Rocca HB Castiello T Čelutkienė J Marques-Sule E Plymen CM Piper SE Riegel B Rutten FH Ben Gal T Bauersachs J Coats AJS Chioncel O Lopatin Y Lund LH Lainscak M Moura B Mullens W Piepoli MF Rosano G Seferovic P Strömberg A Self-care of heart failure patients: practical management recommendations from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology Eur J Heart Fail 2021 23 1 157 174 10.1002/ejhf.2008 32945600 32945600 PMC8048442 · DOI
  6. [6]Jaarsma T Strömberg A Ben Gal T Cameron J Driscoll A Duengen HD Inkrot S Huang TY Huyen NN Kato N Köberich S Lupón J Moser DK Pulignano G Rabelo ER Suwanno J Thompson DR Vellone E Alvaro R Yu D Riegel B Comparison of self-care behaviors of heart failure patients in 15 countries worldwide Patient Educ Couns 2013 92 1 114 120 10.1016/j.pec.2013.02.017 23579040 S0738-3991(13)00090-6 23579040 · DOI
  7. [7]Dixon WG Michaud K Using technology to support clinical care and research in rheumatoid arthritis Curr Opin Rheumatol 2018 30 3 276 281 10.1097/BOR.0000000000000485 29369089 29369089 PMC5895111 · DOI
  8. [8]Nordfonn OK Morken IM Bru LE Husebø AML Patients' experience with heart failure treatment and self-care-a qualitative study exploring the burden of treatment J Clin Nurs 2019 28 9-10 1782 1793 10.1111/jocn.14799 30667120 30667120 · DOI
  9. [9]Mortara A Vaira L Palmieri V Iacoviello M Battistoni I Iacovoni A Macera F Pasqualucci D Bochicchio M De Maria R Would you prescribe mobile health apps for heart failure self-care? An integrated review of commercially available mobile technology for heart failure patients Card Fail Rev 2020 6 e13 10.15420/cfr.2019.11 32537246 32537246 PMC7277786 · DOI
  10. [10]Riegel B Lee CS Dickson VV Medscape Self care in patients with chronic heart failure Nat Rev Cardiol 2011 8 11 644 654 10.1038/nrcardio.2011.95 21769111 nrcardio.2011.95 21769111 · DOI
  11. [11]DeVore AD Wosik J Hernandez AF The future of wearables in heart failure patients JACC Heart Fail 2019 7 11 922 932 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.08.008 31672308 S2213-1779(19)30725-5 31672308 · DOI
  12. [12]Farwati M Riaz H Tang WHW Digital health applications in heart failure: a critical appraisal of literature Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med 2021 23 2 12 10.1007/s11936-020-00885-z 33488049 885 33488049 PMC7812033 · DOI
  13. [13]Kitsiou S Vatani H Paré G Gerber BS Buchholz SW Kansal MM Leigh J Masterson Creber RM Effectiveness of mobile health technology interventions for patients with heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis Can J Cardiol 2021 37 8 1248 1259 10.1016/j.cjca.2021.02.015 33667616 S0828-282X(21)00118-5 33667616 · DOI
  14. [14]Matheson GO Pacione C Shultz RK Klügl M Leveraging human-centered design in chronic disease prevention Am J Prev Med 2015 48 4 472 479 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.10.014 25700655 S0749-3797(14)00618-7 25700655 · DOI
  15. [16]Johnston W Keogh A Dickson J Leslie SJ Megyesi P Connolly R Burke D Caulfield B Human-centered design of a digital health tool to promote effective self-care in patients with heart failure: mixed methods study JMIR Form Res 2022 6 5 e34257 10.2196/34257 35536632 v6i5e34257 35536632 PMC9131139 · DOI
  16. [18]Jaarsma T Arestedt KF Mårtensson J Dracup K Strömberg A The European Heart Failure Self-care Behaviour Scale revised into a nine-item scale (EHFScB-9): a reliable and valid international instrument Eur J Heart Fail 2009 11 1 99 105 10.1093/eurjhf/hfn007 19147463 hfn007 19147463 · DOI
  17. [19]Sedlar N Lainscak M Mårtensson J Strömberg A Jaarsma T Farkas J Factors related to self-care behaviours in heart failure: a systematic review of European Heart Failure Self-Care Behaviour Scale studies Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2017 16 4 272 282 10.1177/1474515117691644 28168895 28168895 · DOI
  18. [21]Rector TS Cohn JN Assessment of patient outcome with the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire: reliability and validity during a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pimobendan Am Heart J 1992 124 4 1017 1025 10.1016/0002-8703(92)90986-6 1529875 0002-8703(92)90986-6 1529875 · DOI
  19. [22]Bangor A Kortum PT Miller JT An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale Int J Hum-Comput Int 2008 24 6 574 594 10.1080/10447310802205776 · DOI · Paper page
  20. [23]Rupp MA Michaelis JR McConnell DS Smither JA The impact of technological trust and self-determined motivation on intentions to use wearable fitness technology Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 2016 60 1 1434 1438 10.1177/1541931213601329 · DOI
  21. [24]Knight JF Baber C Schwirtz A Bristow HW The comfort assessment of wearable computers 2020 Proceedings: Sixth International Symposium on Wearable Computers October 10, 2002 Seattle, WA 65 74
  22. [27]Maxwell JA A Realist Approach for Qualitative Research 2012 Thousand Oaks, CA SAGE Publications
  23. [28]McGowan LJ Powell R French DP How can use of the theoretical domains framework be optimized in qualitative research? A rapid systematic review Br J Health Psychol 2020 25 3 677 694 10.1111/bjhp.12437 32558289 32558289 · DOI · Paper page
  24. [29]Haith-Cooper M Waskett C Montague J Horne M Exercise and physical activity in asylum seekers in Northern England; using the theoretical domains framework to identify barriers and facilitators BMC Public Health 2018 18 1 762 10.1186/s12889-018-5692-2 29914467 10.1186/s12889-018-5692-2 29914467 PMC6007006 · DOI
  25. [31]Brooke J Jordan PW Thomas B Weerdmeester BA McClelland IL SUS: a 'quick and dirty' usability scale Usability Evaluation in Industry 1996 Bristol, PA CRC Press 189 194
  26. [32]Behlouli H Feldman DE Ducharme A Frenette M Giannetti N Grondin F Michel C Sheppard R Pilote L Identifying relative cut-off scores with neural networks for interpretation of the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire 2009 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Science September 03-06, 2009 Minneapolis, MN IEEE 6242 6246 10.1109/iembs.2009.5334659 19965089 · DOI
  27. [33]Oosterom-Calo R van Ballegooijen AJ Terwee CB te Velde SJ Brouwer IA Jaarsma T Brug J Determinants of heart failure self-care: a systematic literature review Heart Fail Rev 2012 17 3 367 385 10.1007/s10741-011-9292-9 22134397 22134397 · DOI
  28. [34]Dickson VV Riegel B Are we teaching what patients need to know? Building skills in heart failure self-care Heart Lung 2009 38 3 253 261 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2008.12.001 19486796 S0147-9563(08)00234-3 19486796 · DOI
  29. [35]Whittal A Störk S Riegel B Herber OR Applying the COM-B behaviour model to overcome barriers to heart failure self-care: a practical application of a conceptual framework for the development of complex interventions (ACHIEVE study) Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2021 20 3 261 267 10.1177/1474515120957292 33909892 6257579 33909892 · DOI
  30. [37]Duprez V Vansteenkiste M Beeckman D Verhaeghe S Van Hecke A Capturing motivating versus demotivating self-management support: development and validation of a vignette-based tool grounded in self-determination theory Int J Nurs Stud 2021 116 103354 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.04.019 31171288 S0020-7489(19)30125-7 31171288 · DOI
  31. [38]Olesen ML Jørgensen R Impact of the person-centred intervention guided self-determination across healthcare settings-an integrated review Scand J Caring Sci 2023 37 1 37 59 10.1111/scs.13138 36524250 36524250 · DOI
  32. [39]Harkness K Spaling MA Currie K Strachan PH Clark AM A systematic review of patient heart failure self-care strategies J Cardiovasc Nurs 2015 30 2 121 35 10.1097/JCN.0000000000000118 24651683 24651683 · DOI
  33. [40]Sohn A Speier W Lan E Aoki K Fonarow GC Ong MK Arnold CW Integrating remote monitoring into heart failure patients' care regimen: a pilot study PLoS One 2020 15 11 e0242210 10.1371/journal.pone.0242210 33211733 PONE-D-20-21712 33211733 PMC7676713 · DOI
  34. [41]Evans J Papadopoulos A Silvers CT Charness N Boot WR Schlachta-Fairchild L Crump C Martinez M Ent CB Remote health monitoring for older adults and those with heart failure: adherence and system usability Telemed J E Health 2016 22 6 480 488 10.1089/tmj.2015.0140 26540369 26540369 PMC4892222 · DOI · Paper page
  35. [42]Shin G Feng Y Jarrahi M Gafinowitz N Beyond novelty effect: a mixed-methods exploration into the motivation for long-term activity tracker use JAMIA Open 2019 2 1 62 72 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooy048 31984346 ooy048 31984346 PMC6952057 · DOI
  36. [44]Mustafa AS Ali N Dhillon JS Alkawsi G Baashar Y User engagement and abandonment of mHealth: a cross-sectional survey Healthcare (Basel) 2022 10 2 221 10.3390/healthcare10020221 35206837 healthcare10020221 35206837 PMC8872344 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Keogh, A., Brennan, C., Johnston, W., Dickson, J., Leslie, S. J., Burke, D., Megyesi, P., & Caulfield, B.
Venue
JMIR Formative Research
Publisher
JMIR Publications Inc.
Published
2024-03-01
Volume
8
Pages
e52442
ISSN
2561-326X
DOI
10.2196/52442
PMC
PMC10959238
Cited by
13
References
4
Language
en

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