Search

BackgroundMobile health (mHealth) services are growing in importance in health care research with the advancement of wireless networks, tablets, and mobile phone technologies. These technologies offer a wide range of applications that cover the spectrum of health care delivery. Although preliminary experiments in mHealth demonstrate promising results, more robust real-world evidence is needed for widespread adoption and sustainment of these technologies. ObjectiveOur aim was to identify the problems/challenges associated with sustained use of an mHealth addiction recovery support app and to determine strategies used by agencies that successfully sustained client use of A-CHESS. MethodsQualitative inquiry assessed staff perceptions about organizational attributes and strategies associated with sustained use of the mobile app, A-CHESS. A total of 73 interviews of clinicians and administrators were conducted. The initial interviews (n=36) occurred at the implementation of A-CHESS. Follow-up interviews (n=37) occurred approximately 12 and 24 months later. A coding scheme was developed and Multiuser NVivo was used to manage and analyze the blinded interview data. ResultsSuccessful strategies used by treatment providers to sustain A-CHESS included (1) strong leadership support, (2) use of client feedback reports to follow up on non-engaged clients, (3) identify passionate staff and incorporate A-CHESS discussions in weekly meetings, (4) develop A-CHESS guidelines related to client use, (5) establish internal work groups to engage clients, and (6) establish a financial strategy to sustain A-CHESS use. The study also identified attributes of A-CHESS that enhanced as well as inhibited its sustainability. ConclusionsMobile apps can play an important role in health care delivery. However, providers will need to develop strategies for engaging both staff and patients in ongoing use of the apps. They will also need to rework business processes to accommodate the changes in communication frequency and style, learn to use app data for decision making, and identify financing mechanisms for supporting these changes.

BackgroundeHealth interventions appear and change so quickly that they challenge the way we conduct research. By the time a randomized trial of a new intervention is published, technological improvements and clinical discoveries may make the intervention dated and unappealing. This and the spate of health-related apps and websites may lead consumers, patients, and caregivers to use interventions that lack evidence of efficacy. ObjectiveThis paper aims to offer strategies for increasing the speed and usefulness of eHealth research. MethodsThe paper describes two types of strategies based on the authors’ own research and the research literature: those that improve the efficiency of eHealth research, and those that improve its quality. ResultsEfficiency strategies include: (1) think small: conduct small studies that can target discrete but significant questions and thereby speed knowledge acquisition; (2) use efficient designs: use such methods as fractional-factorial and quasi-experimental designs and surrogate endpoints, and experimentally modify and evaluate interventions and delivery systems already in use; (3) study universals: focus on timeless behavioral, psychological, and cognitive principles and systems; (4) anticipate the next big thing: listen to voices outside normal practice and connect different perspectives for new insights; (5) improve information delivery systems: researchers should apply their communications expertise to enhance inter-researcher communication, which could synergistically accelerate progress and capitalize upon the availability of “big data”; and (6) develop models, including mediators and moderators: valid models are remarkably generative, and tests of moderation and mediation should elucidate boundary conditions of effects and treatment mechanisms. Quality strategies include: (1) continuous quality improvement: researchers need to borrow engineering practices such as the continuous enhancement of interventions to incorporate clinical and technological progress; (2) help consumers identify quality: consumers, clinicians, and others all need to easily identify quality, suggesting the need to efficiently and publicly index intervention quality; (3) reduce the costs of care: concern with health care costs can drive intervention adoption and use and lead to novel intervention effects (eg, reduced falls in the elderly); and (4) deeply understand users: a rigorous evaluation of the consumer’s needs is a key starting point for intervention development. ConclusionsThe challenges of distinguishing and distributing scientifically validated interventions are formidable. The strategies described are meant to spur discussion and further thinking, which are important, given the potential of eHealth interventions to help patients and families.

The Institute of Medicine defines a good death a “one that is free from avoidable death and suffering for patients, families and caregivers in general accordance with the patients’ and families’ wishes.”. The current system creates barriers to reducing the stress and suffering that accompany a patient’s end of life. Data and eHealth technology, if it were more accessible, could help patients, families, and caregivers to cope with end of life issues.

Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) improves treatment retention and reduces illicit opioid use. A-CHESS is an evidence-based smartphone intervention shown to improve addiction-related behaviors. The authors tested the efficacy of MOUD alone versus MOUD plus A-CHESS to determine whether the combination further improved outcomes. In an unblinded parallel-group randomized controlled trial, 414 participants recruited from outpatient programs were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either MOUD alone or MOUD+A-CHESS for 16 months and were followed for an additional 8 months. All participants were on methadone, buprenorphine, or injectable naltrexone. The primary outcome was abstinence from illicit opioid use; secondary outcomes were treatment retention, health services use, other substance use, and quality of life; moderators were MOUD type, gender, withdrawal symptom severity, pain severity, and loneliness. Data sources were surveys comprising multiple validated scales, as well as urine screens, every 4 months. There was no difference in abstinence between participants in the MOUD+A-CHESS and MOUD-alone arms across time (odds ratio=1.10, 95% CI=0.90–1.33). However, abstinence was moderated by withdrawal symptom severity (odds ratio=0.95, 95% CI=0.91–1.00) and MOUD type (odds ratio=0.57, 95% CI=0.34–0.97). Among participants without withdrawal symptoms, abstinence rates were higher over time for those in the MOUD+A-CHESS arm than for those in the MOUD-alone arm (odds ratio=1.30, 95% CI=1.01–1.67). Among participants taking methadone, those in the MOUD+A-CHESS arm were more likely to be abstinent over time (b=0.28, SE=0.09) than those in the MOUD-alone arm (b=0.06, SE=0.08), although the two groups did not differ significantly from each other (∆b=0.22, SE=0.11). MOUD+A-CHESS was also associated with greater meeting attendance (odds ratio=1.25, 95% CI=1.05–1.49) and decreased emergency department and urgent care use (odds ratio=0.88, 95% CI=0.78–0.99). Overall, MOUD+A-CHESS did not improve abstinence relative to MOUD alone. However, MOUD+A-CHESS may provide benefits for subsets of patients and may impact treatment utilization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]