首页> 外文OA文献 >'Why didn't it work?' Lessons From a randomized controlled trial of a web-based personally controlled health management system for adults with asthma
【2h】

'Why didn't it work?' Lessons From a randomized controlled trial of a web-based personally controlled health management system for adults with asthma

机译:“为什么它不起作用?”来自基于网络的成人哮喘个人控制健康管理系统的随机对照试验的经验教训

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background: Personally controlled health management systems (PCHMS), which may include a personal health record (PHR), health management tools, and information resources, have been advocated as a next-generation technology to improve health behaviors and outcomes. There have been successful trials of PCHMS in various health settings. However, there is mixed evidence for whether consumers will use these systems over the long term and whether they ultimately lead to improved health outcomes and behaviors. Objective: The aim was to test whether use of a PCHMS by consumers can increase the uptake or updating of a written asthma action plan (AAP) among adults with asthma. Methods: A 12-month parallel 2-group randomized controlled trial was conducted. Participants living with asthma were recruited nationally in Australia between April and August 2013, and randomized 1:1 to either the PCHMS group or control group (online static educational content). The primary outcome measure was possession of an up-to-date written AAP poststudy. Secondary measures included (1) utilizing the AAP; (2) planned or unplanned visits to a health care professional for asthma-related concerns; (3) severe asthma exacerbation, inadequately controlled asthma, or worsening of asthma that required a change in treatment; and (4) number of days lost from work or study due to asthma. Ancillary analyses examined reasons for adoption or nonadoption of the intervention. Outcome measures were collected by online questionnaire prestudy, monthly, and poststudy. Results: A total of 330 eligible participants were randomized into 1 of 2 arms (intervention: n=154; control: n=176). Access to the PCHMS was not associated with a significant difference in any of the primary or secondary outcomes. Most participants (80.5%, 124/154) did not access the intervention or accessed it only once. Conclusions: Despite the intervention being effective in other preventive care settings, system use was negligible and outcome changes were not seen as a result. Consumers must perceive the need for assistance with a task and assign priority to the task supported by the eHealth intervention. Additionally, the cost of adopting the intervention (eg, additional effort, time spent learning the new system) must be lower than the benefit. Otherwise, there is high risk consumers will not adopt the eHealth intervention.
机译:背景:个人控制的健康管理系统(PCHMS)可能包括个人健康记录(PHR),健康管理工具和信息资源,已经被提倡为改善健康行为和结果的下一代技术。 PCHMS已在各种健康环境中成功进行了试验。但是,关于消费者是否会长期使用这些系统以及它们最终是否会改善健康结果和改善行为,有各种各样的证据。目的:目的是测试消费者使用PCHMS是否可以增加哮喘成年人的哮喘吸收或更新书面哮喘行动计划(AAP)。方法:进行了为期12个月的平行2组随机对照试验。 2013年4月至2013年8月,澳大利亚全国范围内招募了哮喘患者,并按1:1的比例随机分配给PCHMS组或对照组(在线静态教育内容)。主要结局指标是拥有最新的AAP书面研究报告。二级措施包括(1)利用AAP; (2)因哮喘相关问题而计划或计划外的医疗保健访问; (3)严重哮喘加重,哮喘控制不佳或哮喘恶化,需要改变治疗方法; (4)因哮喘而失去工作或学习的天数。辅助分析检查了采用或不采用干预措施的原因。通过在线问卷调查前,月度和研究后收集结果指标。结果:总共330名合格参与者被随机分为2组中的1组(干预:n = 154;对照组:n = 176)。获得PCHMS与任何主要或次要结局均无显着差异。大多数参与者(80.5%,124/154)没有访问或仅访问过一次。结论:尽管该干预措施在其他预防性护理环境中均有效,但系统使用率可忽略不计,因此未发现结果改变。消费者必须意识到需要协助某项任务,并为eHealth干预支持的任务分配优先级。此外,采取干预措施的成本(例如,额外的精力,花在学习新系统上的时间)必须低于收益。否则,存在高风险的消费者将不会采取eHealth干预措施。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号