Planning digital health interventions: Digital collection of patient-reported measures from older adults
Authors: 
Gayanika Hettiarachchi Senarath, Pari Delir Haghighi, Denise O'Connor, David Snowdon, Velandai SrikanthAuthors Info & Claims
Pages 250 - 253
Abstract
Digital Health Interventions (DHIs) have great potential to improve health and healthcare delivery. However, achieving digital change in healthcare is challenging, and careful planning is needed to ensure its success. Existing approaches for planning DHIs lack attention to ‘complexity’ that considers the heterogeneity of agents (e.g. people, process, technology and new behaviours), interactions between these agents and iterative adaptations of these interactions. In this paper, we present a novel methodology to explore the planning of digital change in healthcare by utilising evidence-, theory- and enhanced person-based approaches that aim to address the limited evidence on iterative approaches to planning digital change, elicitation of wider stakeholder views and involvement of vulnerable populations in planning of digital change. We aim to apply this methodology in the context of planning digital patient-reported measures collection systems for older adults aged 65 years and above to report their health status and experiences, in a public health community rehabilitation care setting.
References
[1]
Meshari F. Alwashmi, Beverly Fitzpatrick, Erin Davis, Jamie Farrell, John-Michael Gamble and John Hawboldt. 2020. Features of a mobile health intervention to manage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A qualitative study. Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease, 14, (September 2020), 1 – 25.
[2]
Rebecca Band, Katherine Bradbury, Katherine Morton, Carl May, Susan Michie, Frances S. Mair, Elizabeth Murray, Richard, J. McManus, Paul Little and Lucy Yardley, 2017. Intervention planning for a digital intervention for self-management of hypertension: A theory-, evidence- and person-based approach. Implementation Science, 12, Article 25 (February 2017), 13 pages.
[3]
Rebecca Band, Lisa Hinton, Katherine L. Tucker, Lucy C. Chappell, Carole Crawford, Marloes Franssen, Sheila Greenfield, James Hodgkinson, Christine McCourt, Richard J. McManus, Jane Sandall, Mauro Dala Santos, Carmelo Velardo and Lucy Yardley, 2019. Intervention planning and modification of the BUMP intervention: A digital intervention for the early detection of raised blood pressure in pregnancy. Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 5, Article 153 (December 2019), 12 pages.
[4]
L. Kay Bartholomew Eldredge, Christine M. Markham, Robert A. C. Ruiter, Maria E. Fernández, Gerjo Kok and Guy S. Parcel. 2006. Planning health promotion programs: An intervention mapping approach (2nd. ed.) Wiley, New York, NY.
[5]
Binyam Bogale, Kjersti Mørkrid, Brian O'Donnell, Buthaina Ghanem, Itimad Abu Ward, Khadija Abu Khader, Mervett Isbeih, Michael Frost, Mohammad Baniode, Taghreed Hijaz, Tamara Awwad, Yousef Rabah and J. Frederik Frøen. 2020. Development of a targeted client communication intervention to women using an electronic maternal and child health registry: A qualitative study. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 20, Article 1 (2020), 12 pages.
[6]
Jeffrey Braithwaite, Kate Churruca, Janet C. Long, Louise A. Ellis, and Jessica Herkes. 2018. When complexity science meets implementation science: A theoretical and empirical analysis of systems change. BMC Medicine, 16, Article 63 (2018), 14 pages.
[7]
Linda M. Collins, Susan A. Murphy and Victor Strecher. 2007. The Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) and the Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART): New Methods for More Potent eHealth Interventions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32, 5, S112–S118.
[8]
Samera Dean, Jonathan M Mathers, Melanie Calvert, Derek G Kyte, Dolores Conroy, Annie Folkard, Sue Southworth, Philip I Murray and Alastair K Denniston. 2017. “The patient is speaking”: Discovering the patient voice in ophthalmology. The British Journal of Ophthalmology, 101, 6, 700–708.
[9]
J. Ellis, R. Band, K. Kinsella, T. Cheetham-Blake, E. James, S. Eings and A. Rogers. 2020. Optimising and profiling pre-implementation contexts to create and implement a public health network intervention for tackling loneliness. Implementation Science, 15, Article 35 (2020), 11 pages.
[10]
Trisha Greenhalgh, Harvey Maylor, Sara Shaw, Joseph Wherton, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Victoria Betton, Natalie Nelissen, Andreas Gremyr, Alexander Rushforth, Mona Koshkouei and John Taylor. 2020. The NASSS-CAT Tools for Understanding, Guiding, Monitoring, and Researching Technology Implementation Projects in Health and Social Care: Protocol for an Evaluation Study in Real-World Settings. JMIR Research Protocols, 9, 5, e16861, 12 pages.
[11]
Trisha Greenhalgh, Joseph Wherton, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Jennifer Lynch, Gemma Hughes, Christine A'Court, Susan Hinder, Nick Fahy, Rob Procter Sara Shaw. 2017. Beyond Adoption: A New Framework for Theorizing and Evaluating Nonadoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to the Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability of Health and Care Technologies. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19, 11, e367, 21 pages.
[12]
Pat Hoddinott. 2015. A new era for intervention development studies. Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 1, Article 36, 4 pages.
[13]
T. Lindhardt and M. H. Nielsen. 2017. Older patients’ use of technology for a post-discharge nutritional intervention – A mixed-methods feasibility study. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 97, 312–321.
[14]
Susan Michie, Maartje M van Stralen and Robert West. 2011. The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6, Article 42, 11 pages.
[15]
Sarah Ann Mummah, Thomas N Robinson, Abby C King, Christopher D Gardner and Stephen Sutton. 2016. IDEAS (Integrate, Design, Assess, and Share): A Framework and Toolkit of Strategies for the Development of More Effective Digital Interventions to Change Health Behavior. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18, 12, e5927, 14 pages.
[16]
Elizabeth Murray, Eric B Hekler, Gerhard Andersson, Linda M Collins, Aiden Doherty, Chris Hollis, Daniel E Rivera, Robert West and Jeremy C Wyatt. 2016. Evaluating digital health interventions: Key questions and approaches. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 51, 5, 843–851.
[17]
Alicia O'Cathain, Liz Croot, Katie Sworn, Edward Duncan, Nikki Rousseau, Katrina M Turner, Lucy Yardley and Pat Hoddinott. 2019. Taxonomy of approaches to developing interventions to improve health: A systematic methods overview. Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 5, Article 41 (2019), 27 pages.
[18]
Tanvi Rai, Kate Morton, Cristian Roman, Roisin Doogue, Cathy Rice, Marney Williams, Claire Schwartz, Carmelo Velardo, Lionel Tarassenko, Lucy Yardley, Richard J McManus and Lisa Hinton. 2021. Optimizing a digital intervention for managing blood pressure in stroke patients using a diverse sample: Integrating the person‐based approach and patient and public involvement. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy, 24, 2, 327–340.
[19]
Lucy Yardley, Leanne Morrison, Katherine Bradbury, Ingrid Muller. 2015. The Person-Based Approach to Intervention Development: Application to Digital Health-Related Behavior Change Interventions. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17, 1, e4055, 15 pages.
Index Terms
- Planning digital health interventions: Digital collection of patient-reported measures from older adults
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Dyadic digital health interventions: Their rationale and implementation
AbstractWhile most psychosocial and behavioral digital health interventions have been designed to be consumed by an individual, intervening at the level of a dyad – two interdependent individuals – can more comprehensively address the needs of both ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Copyright © 2022 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 21 March 2022
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Short-paper
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
ACSW 2022
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 61 of 141 submissions, 43%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 103Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)31
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
Reflects downloads up to 18 Sep 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format