Assessing the Impact of Patient-Facing Mobile Health Technology on Patient Outcomes: Retrospective Observational Cohort Study.
communication programs
hospital stay
length of stay
mHealth
patient activation
patient empowerment
patient engagement
patient involvement
patient satisfaction
patient-centered care
Journal
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
ISSN: 2291-5222
Titre abrégé: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101624439
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 06 2020
26 06 2020
Historique:
received:
13
04
2020
accepted:
15
05
2020
revised:
14
05
2020
entrez:
27
6
2020
pubmed:
27
6
2020
medline:
19
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Despite the growth of and media hype about mobile health (mHealth), there is a paucity of literature supporting the effectiveness of widespread implementation of mHealth technologies. This study aimed to assess whether an innovative mHealth technology system with several overlapping purposes can impact (1) clinical outcomes (ie, readmission rates, revisit rates, and length of stay) and (2) patient-centered care outcomes (ie, patient engagement, patient experience, and patient satisfaction). We compared all patients (2059 patients) of participating orthopedic surgeons using mHealth technology with all patients of nonparticipating orthopedic surgeons (2554 patients). The analyses included Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous variables, and chi-square tests for categorical variables. Logistic regression models were performed on categorical outcomes and a gamma-distributed model for continuous variables. All models were adjusted for patient demographics and comorbidities. The inpatient readmission rates for the nonparticipating group when compared with the participating group were higher and demonstrated higher odds ratios (ORs) for 30-day inpatient readmissions (nonparticipating group 106/2636, 4.02% and participating group 54/2048, 2.64%; OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.13; P=.04), 60-day inpatient readmissions (nonparticipating group 194/2636, 7.36% and participating group 85/2048, 4.15%; OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.39; P<.001), and 90-day inpatient readmissions (nonparticipating group 261/2636, 9.90% and participating group 115/2048, 5.62%; OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.34; P<.001). The length of stay for the nonparticipating cohort was longer at 1.90 days, whereas the length of stay for the participating cohort was 1.50 days (mean 1.87, SD 2 vs mean 1.50, SD 1.37; P<.001). Patients treated by participating surgeons received and read text messages using mHealth 83% of the time and read emails 84% of the time. Patients responded to 60% of the text messages and 53% of the email surveys. Patients were least responsive to digital monitoring questions when the hospital asked them to do something, and they were most engaged with emails that did not require action, including informational content. A total of 96% (558/580) of patients indicated high satisfaction with using mHealth technology to support their care. Only 0.40% (75/2059) patients opted-out of the mHealth technology program after enrollment. A novel, multicomponent, pathway-driven, patient-facing mHealth technology can positively impact patient outcomes and patient-reported experiences. These technologies can empower patients to play a more active and meaningful role in improving their outcomes. There is a deep need, however, for a better understanding of the interactions between patients, technology, and health care providers. Future research is needed to (1) help identify, address, and improve technology usability and effectiveness; (2) understand patient and provider attributes that support adoption, uptake, and sustainability; and (3) understand the factors that contribute to barriers of technology adoption and how best to overcome them.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Despite the growth of and media hype about mobile health (mHealth), there is a paucity of literature supporting the effectiveness of widespread implementation of mHealth technologies.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to assess whether an innovative mHealth technology system with several overlapping purposes can impact (1) clinical outcomes (ie, readmission rates, revisit rates, and length of stay) and (2) patient-centered care outcomes (ie, patient engagement, patient experience, and patient satisfaction).
METHODS
We compared all patients (2059 patients) of participating orthopedic surgeons using mHealth technology with all patients of nonparticipating orthopedic surgeons (2554 patients). The analyses included Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous variables, and chi-square tests for categorical variables. Logistic regression models were performed on categorical outcomes and a gamma-distributed model for continuous variables. All models were adjusted for patient demographics and comorbidities.
RESULTS
The inpatient readmission rates for the nonparticipating group when compared with the participating group were higher and demonstrated higher odds ratios (ORs) for 30-day inpatient readmissions (nonparticipating group 106/2636, 4.02% and participating group 54/2048, 2.64%; OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.13; P=.04), 60-day inpatient readmissions (nonparticipating group 194/2636, 7.36% and participating group 85/2048, 4.15%; OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.39; P<.001), and 90-day inpatient readmissions (nonparticipating group 261/2636, 9.90% and participating group 115/2048, 5.62%; OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.34; P<.001). The length of stay for the nonparticipating cohort was longer at 1.90 days, whereas the length of stay for the participating cohort was 1.50 days (mean 1.87, SD 2 vs mean 1.50, SD 1.37; P<.001). Patients treated by participating surgeons received and read text messages using mHealth 83% of the time and read emails 84% of the time. Patients responded to 60% of the text messages and 53% of the email surveys. Patients were least responsive to digital monitoring questions when the hospital asked them to do something, and they were most engaged with emails that did not require action, including informational content. A total of 96% (558/580) of patients indicated high satisfaction with using mHealth technology to support their care. Only 0.40% (75/2059) patients opted-out of the mHealth technology program after enrollment.
CONCLUSIONS
A novel, multicomponent, pathway-driven, patient-facing mHealth technology can positively impact patient outcomes and patient-reported experiences. These technologies can empower patients to play a more active and meaningful role in improving their outcomes. There is a deep need, however, for a better understanding of the interactions between patients, technology, and health care providers. Future research is needed to (1) help identify, address, and improve technology usability and effectiveness; (2) understand patient and provider attributes that support adoption, uptake, and sustainability; and (3) understand the factors that contribute to barriers of technology adoption and how best to overcome them.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32589161
pii: v8i6e19333
doi: 10.2196/19333
pmc: PMC7381069
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e19333Informations de copyright
©Courtenay R Bruce, Patricia Harrison, Tariq Nisar, Charlie Giammattei, Neema M Tan, Caitlin Bliven, Jamie Shallcross, Aroub Khleif, Nhan Tran, Sayali Kelkar, Noreen Tobias, Ana E Chavez, Dana Rivera, Angela Leong, Angela Romano, S Nicholas Desai, Josh R Sol, Kayla Gutierrez, Christopher Rappel, Eric Haas, Feibi Zheng, Kwan J Park, Stephen Jones, Paul Barach, Roberta Schwartz. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 26.06.2020.
Références
N Engl J Med. 1987 Jul 16;317(3):141-5
pubmed: 3600702
Med Care Res Rev. 2014 Oct;71(5):522-54
pubmed: 25027409
BMJ. 2008 Apr 26;336(7650):924-6
pubmed: 18436948
Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 May;29(5):921-5
pubmed: 20439881
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Jul;25(7):509-17
pubmed: 26376674
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Jul;104(1):9-11
pubmed: 29890004
Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2017 Aug;19(8):60
pubmed: 28647844
BMJ Open. 2013 Jan 03;3(1):
pubmed: 23293244
Science. 2019 Oct 25;366(6464):447-453
pubmed: 31649194
BMJ Open. 2014 Jun 04;4(6):e004720
pubmed: 24898087
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2016 Aug;41(4):675-96
pubmed: 27127265
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):520-8
pubmed: 22007045
Clin Med Insights Cardiol. 2019 Jul 10;13:1179546819861396
pubmed: 31316270
Ann Intern Med. 2012 Sep 18;157(6):417-28
pubmed: 22986379
Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2015 Sep 30;12:14
pubmed: 26425136
Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Feb;32(2):207-14
pubmed: 23381511
Am J Prev Med. 2016 Nov;51(5):843-851
pubmed: 27745684
Am J Public Health. 2005;95 Suppl 1:S144-50
pubmed: 16030331
MedGenMed. 2001 Mar 05;3(2):2
pubmed: 11549951
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):MR000012
pubmed: 17443633
N Engl J Med. 2010 Dec 9;363(24):2301-9
pubmed: 21080835
Transl Behav Med. 2017 Jun;7(2):254-267
pubmed: 27966189
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jun 29;19(6):e232
pubmed: 28663162
JAMA. 1995 Feb 1;273(5):408-12
pubmed: 7823387
Telemed J E Health. 2020 May;26(5):576-583
pubmed: 31314689
Evid Based Ment Health. 2007 Aug;10(3):67-8
pubmed: 17652553
J R Soc Med. 2015 Jan;108(1):32-7
pubmed: 25572993
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016 May 04;9:211-7
pubmed: 27217764
Bull World Health Organ. 2005 Oct;83(10):792-5
pubmed: 16283057
Mhealth. 2017 Aug 08;3:31
pubmed: 28894741