Effects of Adherence to an mHealth Tool for Self-Management of COPD Exacerbations.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Pub Date : 2023-11-01 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.2147/COPD.S431199
Erik W M A Bischoff, Nikki Ariens, Lonneke Boer, Jan Vercoulen, Reinier P Akkermans, Lisette van den Bemt, Tjard R Schermer
{"title":"Effects of Adherence to an mHealth Tool for Self-Management of COPD Exacerbations.","authors":"Erik W M A Bischoff, Nikki Ariens, Lonneke Boer, Jan Vercoulen, Reinier P Akkermans, Lisette van den Bemt, Tjard R Schermer","doi":"10.2147/COPD.S431199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Poor adherence to COPD mobile health (mHealth) has been reported, but its association with exacerbation-related outcomes is unknown. We explored the effects of mHealth adherence on exacerbation-free weeks and self-management behavior. We also explored differences in self-efficacy and stages of grief between adherent and non-adherent COPD patients.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We conducted secondary analyses using data from a recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared the effects of mHealth (intervention) with a paper action plan (comparator) for COPD exacerbation self-management. We used data from the intervention group only to assess differences in exacerbation-free weeks (primary outcome) between patients who were adherent and non-adherent to the mHealth tool. We also assessed differences in the type and timing of self-management actions and scores on self-efficacy and stages of grief (secondary outcomes). We used generalized negative binomial regression analyses with correction for follow-up length to analyze exacerbation-free weeks and multilevel logistic regression analyses with correction for clustering for secondary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included data of 38 patients of whom 13 (34.2%) (mean (SD) age 69.2 (11.2) years) were adherent and 25 (65.8%) (mean (SD) age 68.7 (7.8) years) were non-adherent. Adherent patients did not differ from non-adherent patients in exacerbation-free weeks (mean (SD) 31.5 (14.5) versus 33.5 (10.2); p=0.63). Although statistically not significant, adherent patients increased their bronchodilator use more often and more timely, contacted a healthcare professional and/or initiated prednisolone and/or antibiotics more often, and showed at baseline higher scores of self-efficacy and disease acceptance and lower scores of denial, resistance, and sorrow, compared with non-adherent patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Adherence to mHealth may be positively associated with COPD exacerbation self-management behavior, self-efficacy and disease acceptance, but its association with exacerbation-free weeks remains unclear. Our results should be interpreted with caution by this pilot study's explorative nature and small sample size.</p>","PeriodicalId":48818,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease","volume":"18 ","pages":"2381-2389"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10625742/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S431199","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Poor adherence to COPD mobile health (mHealth) has been reported, but its association with exacerbation-related outcomes is unknown. We explored the effects of mHealth adherence on exacerbation-free weeks and self-management behavior. We also explored differences in self-efficacy and stages of grief between adherent and non-adherent COPD patients.

Patients and methods: We conducted secondary analyses using data from a recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared the effects of mHealth (intervention) with a paper action plan (comparator) for COPD exacerbation self-management. We used data from the intervention group only to assess differences in exacerbation-free weeks (primary outcome) between patients who were adherent and non-adherent to the mHealth tool. We also assessed differences in the type and timing of self-management actions and scores on self-efficacy and stages of grief (secondary outcomes). We used generalized negative binomial regression analyses with correction for follow-up length to analyze exacerbation-free weeks and multilevel logistic regression analyses with correction for clustering for secondary outcomes.

Results: We included data of 38 patients of whom 13 (34.2%) (mean (SD) age 69.2 (11.2) years) were adherent and 25 (65.8%) (mean (SD) age 68.7 (7.8) years) were non-adherent. Adherent patients did not differ from non-adherent patients in exacerbation-free weeks (mean (SD) 31.5 (14.5) versus 33.5 (10.2); p=0.63). Although statistically not significant, adherent patients increased their bronchodilator use more often and more timely, contacted a healthcare professional and/or initiated prednisolone and/or antibiotics more often, and showed at baseline higher scores of self-efficacy and disease acceptance and lower scores of denial, resistance, and sorrow, compared with non-adherent patients.

Conclusion: Adherence to mHealth may be positively associated with COPD exacerbation self-management behavior, self-efficacy and disease acceptance, but its association with exacerbation-free weeks remains unclear. Our results should be interpreted with caution by this pilot study's explorative nature and small sample size.

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
坚持使用mHealth工具自我管理COPD病情的效果。
目的:据报道,COPD移动健康(mHealth)依从性差,但其与病情恶化相关结果的关系尚不清楚。我们探讨了mHealth依从性对无恶化周数和自我管理行为的影响。我们还探讨了坚持性和非坚持性COPD患者在自我效能和悲伤阶段方面的差异。患者和方法:我们使用最近一项随机对照试验(RCT)的数据进行了二次分析,该试验比较了mHealth(干预)与纸质行动计划(对照)对COPD恶化自我管理的影响。我们仅使用干预组的数据来评估mHealth工具依从性和非依从性患者在无恶化周数(主要结果)方面的差异。我们还评估了自我管理行动的类型和时间以及自我效能感和悲伤阶段(次要结果)得分的差异。我们使用对随访时间进行校正的广义负二项回归分析来分析无恶化周数,并使用对次要结果进行聚类校正的多水平逻辑回归分析。结果:我们纳入了38名患者的数据,其中13名(34.2%)(平均(SD)年龄69.2(11.2)岁)为粘连患者,25名(65.8%)(平均年龄68.7(7.8)岁)非粘连患者。在无恶化周,粘附性患者与非粘附性患者没有差异(平均值(SD)31.5(14.5)对33.5(10.2);p=0.63)。尽管在统计学上并不显著,但与非粘连患者相比,粘连患者更频繁、更及时地增加了支气管扩张剂的使用,更频繁地联系医疗专业人员和/或开始使用泼尼松龙和/或抗生素,并在基线时表现出更高的自我效能感和疾病接受得分,以及更低的否认、抵抗和悲伤得分。结论:坚持mHealth可能与COPD加重期自我管理行为、自我效能和疾病接受呈正相关,但其与无加重期周数的关系尚不清楚。我们的结果应该谨慎地解释这项试点研究的探索性和小样本量。
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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
10.70%
发文量
372
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: An international, peer-reviewed journal of therapeutics and pharmacology focusing on concise rapid reporting of clinical studies and reviews in COPD. Special focus will be given to the pathophysiological processes underlying the disease, intervention programs, patient focused education, and self management protocols. This journal is directed at specialists and healthcare professionals
期刊最新文献
A Qualitative Study on Illness Perception and Coping Behaviors Among Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Implications for Intervention. Effects of Low-Carbohydrate and Low-Fat Diets on Morbidity and Mortality of COPD. Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Hospitalized AECOPDs Secondary to SARS-CoV-2 versus Other Respiratory Viruses. Stability of Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio in Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Its Relationship with Clinical Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation versus High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: An Updated Narrative Review.
×
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