Public mobile chronic obstructive pulmonary disease applications for self-management: Patients and healthcare professionals' perspectives.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1177/14604582241292206
Shirley Quach, Adam Benoit, Tara L Packham, Roger Goldstein, Dina Brooks
{"title":"Public mobile chronic obstructive pulmonary disease applications for self-management: Patients and healthcare professionals' perspectives.","authors":"Shirley Quach, Adam Benoit, Tara L Packham, Roger Goldstein, Dina Brooks","doi":"10.1177/14604582241292206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Poorly controlled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can negatively impact quality of life but mobile applications (apps) are popular digital tools that may mitigate these support needs. However, it is unclear if public mobile COPD apps are acceptable to healthcare professionals and patients, people living with COPD. <b>Objectives:</b> The primary objective is to determine people with COPD and healthcare professionals' perspectives on the appropriateness of public mobile COPD apps for supporting individuals' needs. The secondary objectives were to identify the ideal features and styles of mobile COPD apps for COPD self-management; and to identify the facilitators, barriers and needs for future COPD app research and development. <b>Methods:</b> Public mobile COPD apps were rated by questionnaires administered before and after focus group meetings. Ratings were reported as medians with interquartile ranges and median scores were categorized into three levels of appropriateness: 1-3 for inappropriate; 4-6 for uncertain; and 7-9 for appropriate. <b>Results:</b> A total of 6 people with COPD (mean age 68.2 ± 4.8years) and 22 healthcare professionals (mean age 45 ± 8.3years) completed this study. People with COPD identified one and healthcare professionals identified three public mobile COPD apps to be appropriate. They had different preferences for features and engagement styles but similar preferences for facilitators and barriers to use. Stakeholders mutually rated one public mobile COPD app as appropriate for self-management and emphasized the need for apps to be supplementary and customizable, rather than replacements for clinical management.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14604582241292206","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Poorly controlled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can negatively impact quality of life but mobile applications (apps) are popular digital tools that may mitigate these support needs. However, it is unclear if public mobile COPD apps are acceptable to healthcare professionals and patients, people living with COPD. Objectives: The primary objective is to determine people with COPD and healthcare professionals' perspectives on the appropriateness of public mobile COPD apps for supporting individuals' needs. The secondary objectives were to identify the ideal features and styles of mobile COPD apps for COPD self-management; and to identify the facilitators, barriers and needs for future COPD app research and development. Methods: Public mobile COPD apps were rated by questionnaires administered before and after focus group meetings. Ratings were reported as medians with interquartile ranges and median scores were categorized into three levels of appropriateness: 1-3 for inappropriate; 4-6 for uncertain; and 7-9 for appropriate. Results: A total of 6 people with COPD (mean age 68.2 ± 4.8years) and 22 healthcare professionals (mean age 45 ± 8.3years) completed this study. People with COPD identified one and healthcare professionals identified three public mobile COPD apps to be appropriate. They had different preferences for features and engagement styles but similar preferences for facilitators and barriers to use. Stakeholders mutually rated one public mobile COPD app as appropriate for self-management and emphasized the need for apps to be supplementary and customizable, rather than replacements for clinical management.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于自我管理的慢性阻塞性肺病公共移动应用程序:患者和医护人员的观点。
慢性阻塞性肺病(COPD)控制不佳会对生活质量产生负面影响,但移动应用程序(App)是一种流行的数字工具,可以缓解这些支持需求。然而,目前还不清楚医护人员和患者(慢性阻塞性肺病患者)是否能接受公共移动慢性阻塞性肺病应用程序。目标:首要目标是确定慢性阻塞性肺病患者和医护人员对公共移动慢性阻塞性肺病应用程序是否适合支持个人需求的看法。次要目标是确定慢性阻塞性肺病自我管理移动应用程序的理想功能和风格;并确定未来慢性阻塞性肺病应用程序研发的促进因素、障碍和需求。研究方法通过在焦点小组会议前后发放调查问卷,对公共移动慢性阻塞性肺病应用程序进行评分。评分以中位数和四分位数之间的范围进行报告,中位数分为三个合适度等级:1-3 为不合适;4-6 为不确定;7-9 为合适。结果共有 6 名慢性阻塞性肺病患者(平均年龄为 68.2 ± 4.8 岁)和 22 名医护人员(平均年龄为 45 ± 8.3 岁)完成了这项研究。慢性阻塞性肺病患者和医护人员分别确定了一款和三款适合慢性阻塞性肺病的公共移动应用程序。他们对功能和参与方式的偏好不同,但对使用的促进因素和障碍的偏好相似。利益相关者共同将一款慢性阻塞性肺病公共移动应用程序评定为适合自我管理,并强调应用程序需要是补充性的、可定制的,而不是临床管理的替代品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1