Display options
Share it on

JMIR Hum Factors. 2017 Sep 19;4(3):e20. doi: 10.2196/humanfactors.7196.

Perceptions of Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Their Physiotherapists Regarding the Use of an eHealth Intervention.

JMIR human factors

Sigrid Vorrink, Chantal Huisman, Helianthe Kort, Thierry Troosters, Jan-Willem Lammers

Affiliations

  1. Faculty Chair Demand Driven Care, Research Centre for Innovations in Health Care, University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
  2. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
  3. Division Heart and Lungs, Department of Respiratory Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.

PMID: 28928110 PMCID: PMC5627045 DOI: 10.2196/humanfactors.7196

Abstract

BACKGROUND: If eHealth interventions are not used (properly), their potential benefits cannot be fulfilled. User perceptions of eHealth are an important determinant of its successful implementation. This study examined how patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and their physiotherapists (PHTs) value an eHealth self-management intervention following a period of use.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to evaluate the perceptions of COPD patients and their PHTs as eHealth users.

METHODS: In this study, an eHealth self-management intervention (website and mobile phone app) aimed at stimulating physical activity (PA) in COPD patients was evaluated by its users (patients and PHTs). As participants in a randomized controlled trial (RCT), they were asked how they valued the eHealth intervention after 6 months' use. Interview requests were made to 33 PHTs from 26 participating practices, and a questionnaire was sent to 76 patients. The questionnaire was analyzed in Excel (Microsoft). The interviews with the PHTs and text messages (short message service, SMS) sent between patients and PHTs were transcribed and independently coded in MAXQDA 10 for Windows (VERBI GmbH).

RESULTS: A total of 60 patients with COPD filled out the questionnaire, and 24 PHTs were interviewed. The mobile phone app was used 89.0% (160.2/180 days) (standard deviation [SD] 18.5) of the time by patients; 53% (13/24) of PHTs reported low or no use. Patients scored the ease of use of the app 5.09 (SD 1.14) (on a 7-point scale). They found the presentation of the PA information in the app to be clear, insightful, and stimulating. All PHTs judged the website as explicit and user-friendly but had trouble devising a new PA goal for their patients. Patients mostly sent informative, neutral messages concerning the PA goal, and PHTs sent mostly motivating, positive messages concerning the PA goal. Messages were not perceived as supportive in reaching the PA goal according to the patients. Perceived usefulness of the intervention for the PHTs was the objective measurement of PA, the ability to see PA patterns over time, and the ability to use the intervention as a tool to give their patients insight into their PA. For patients, it was that the intervention supported them in increasing their PA and that it made them feel fitter. Barriers to use of the intervention according to the PHTs were time constraints and financial reasons. Seventy-nine percent (19/24) of the PHTs and 58% (35/60) of the patients mentioned they would be interested in using the intervention in the future.

CONCLUSIONS: PHTs and COPD patients had positive feelings regarding the functionality and potential of the eHealth self-management intervention. This paper addresses a number of topics that may aid in the successful development and implementation of these types of eHealth interventions in the future.

©Sigrid Vorrink, Chantal Huisman, Helianthe Kort, Thierry Troosters, Jan-Willem Lammers. Originally published in JMIR Human Factors (http://humanfactors.jmir.org), 19.09.2017.

Keywords: physical therapists; pulmonary disease, chronic obstructive; self care; telemedicine

References

  1. J Med Internet Res. 2005 Nov 21;7(5):e57 - PubMed
  2. Nurs Health Sci. 2007 Mar;9(1):23-8 - PubMed
  3. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009;146:166-70 - PubMed
  4. Eur J Intern Med. 2011 Feb;22(1):39-42 - PubMed
  5. COPD. 2012 Jun;9(3):216-26 - PubMed
  6. J Nurs Res. 2012 Sep;20(3):169-80 - PubMed
  7. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012 Sep 01;6(5):1197-206 - PubMed
  8. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Feb 14;15(2):e35 - PubMed
  9. Sensors (Basel). 2013 Jul 17;13(7):9183-200 - PubMed
  10. Maturitas. 2014 Jan;77(1):37-40 - PubMed
  11. BMC Fam Pract. 2014 Jan 08;15:4 - PubMed
  12. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2014 Mar;20(2):132-7 - PubMed
  13. Australas J Ageing. 2015 Jun;34(2):E7-E12 - PubMed
  14. Respiration. 2014;88(2):92-100 - PubMed
  15. Eur Respir J. 2014 Nov;44(5):1223-33 - PubMed
  16. Med 2 0. 2013 Sep 05;2(2):e10 - PubMed
  17. Technol Health Care. 2014;22(5):677-87 - PubMed
  18. J Med Syst. 2015 Mar;39(3):28 - PubMed
  19. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016 Jan;53:3-16 - PubMed
  20. BMC Res Notes. 2015 Dec 10;8:766 - PubMed
  21. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Jan 26;4(1):e11 - PubMed
  22. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Feb 25;16:26 - PubMed
  23. Nurse Educ Today. 2016 Apr;39:50-62 - PubMed
  24. Eur Respir J. 2016 Oct;48(4):1019-1029 - PubMed
  25. Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factor Comput Syst. 2008;2008:3291-3296 - PubMed

Publication Types