Dataset Information

Perceptions of Mobile Health Apps and Features to Support Psychosocial Well-being Among Frontline Health Care Workers Involved in the COVID-19 Pandemic Response: Qualitative Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Frontline health care workers are experiencing a myriad of physical and psychosocial challenges amid the COVID-19 pandemic. There is growing recognition that digital technologies have the potential to improve the well-being of frontline workers. However, there has been limited development of wellness interventions using mobile health (mHealth) technology. More importantly, little research has been conducted on how frontline workers perceive mHealth-based support to promote their well-being.

Objective

This study aimed to explore frontline workers' experience of conventional psychological wellness programs and their perceptions of the usefulness of mHealth apps and features for promoting well-being. It also sought to identify factors that could potentially influence uptake and retention of an mHealth-based wellness program.

Methods

We conducted semistructured interviews using purposive sampling with frontline workers involved in the COVID-19 response. Various visual materials, collated from existing mHealth app features, were presented to facilitate discussion. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis based on grounded theory was undertaken. Themes were subsequently mapped to key nudge strategies-those commonly used for mHealth development-to assess participants' preferences for particular features and their reasoning.

Results

A total of 42 frontline workers participated in 12 one-on-one interviews or focus group discussions. Frontline workers generally had a limited ability to identify their own psychological problems and liked the reminders functionality of the app to track their mood over time. A personalized goal-setting feature (ie, tailoring) and in-app resources were generally valued, while frequent coaching and messages (ie, framing) were seen as a distraction. The majority of participants desired a built-in chat function with a counselor (ie, guidance) for reasons of accessibility and protection of privacy. Very few participants appreciated a gamification function. Frontline workers commonly reported the need for ongoing social support and desired access to an in-app peer support community (ie, social influence). There were, however, concerns regarding potential risks from virtual peer interactions. Intrinsic motivational factors, mHealth app technicality, and tangible rewards were identified as critical for uptake and retention.

Conclusions

Our study highlights the potential of mHealth apps with relevant features to be used as wellness tools by frontline health care workers. Future work should focus on developing a nonintrusive and personalized mHealth app with in-app counseling, peer support to improve well-being, and tangible and extrinsic rewards to foster continued use.

SUBMITTER: Yoon S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8168635 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDigital health devices, such as health and well-being smartphone apps, could offer an accessible and cost-effective way to deliver health and well-being interventions. A key component of the effectiveness of health and well-being apps is user engagement. However, engagement with health and well-being apps is typically poor. Previous studies have identified a list of factors that could influence engagement; however, most of these studies were conducted on a particular population or for an app targeting a particular behavior. An understanding of the factors that influence engagement with a wide range of health and well-being apps can inform the design and the development of more engaging apps in general.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to explore user experiences of and reasons for engaging and not engaging with a wide range of health and well-being apps.MethodsA sample of adults in the United Kingdom (N=17) interested in using a health or well-being app participated in a semistructured interview to explore experiences of engaging and not engaging with these apps. Participants were recruited via social media platforms. Data were analyzed with the framework approach, informed by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model and the Theoretical Domains Framework, which are 2 widely used frameworks that incorporate a comprehensive set of behavioral influences.ResultsFactors that influence the capability of participants included available user guidance, statistical and health information, reduced cognitive load, well-designed reminders, self-monitoring features, features that help establish a routine, features that offer a safety net, and stepping-stone app characteristics. Tailoring, peer support, and embedded professional support were identified as important factors that enhance user opportunities for engagement with health and well-being apps. Feedback, rewards, encouragement, goal setting, action planning, self-confidence, and commitment were judged to be the motivation factors that affect engagement with health and well-being apps.ConclusionsMultiple factors were identified across all components of the COM-B model that may be valuable for the development of more engaging health and well-being apps. Engagement appears to be influenced primarily by features that provide user guidance, promote minimal cognitive load, support self-monitoring (capability), provide embedded social support (opportunity), and provide goal setting with action planning (motivation). This research provides recommendations for policy makers, industry, health care providers, and app developers for increasing effective engagement.

Project description:BackgroundTechnology can play an important role in supporting mental health. Many studies have explored the effectiveness, acceptability, or context of use of different types of mental health technologies. However, existing research has tended to investigate single types of technology at a time rather than exploring a wider ecosystem that people may use. This narrow focus can limit our understanding of how we could best design mental health technologies.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate which technologies (smartphone apps, discussion forums and social media, and websites and Web-based programs) people use to support their mental health and why, whether they combine and use more than one technology, what purpose each technology serves, and which features people find the most valuable.MethodsWe conducted an online survey to gather responses from members of the public who use technology to support their mental health and well-being. The survey was advertised on social media and via posters at a university. It explored usage patterns, frequently used features, and engagement with technology. To gain deeper insights into users' preferences, we also thematically analyzed open-ended comments about each technology type and suggestions for improvements provided by the respondents.ResultsIn total, 81 eligible participants completed the survey. Smartphone apps were the most commonly used technology, with 78% of the participants (63/81) using them, either alone (40%) or in combination with other technologies (38%). Each type of technology was used for specific purposes: apps provided guided activities, relaxation, and enabled tracking; social media and discussion forums allowed participants to learn from the experiences of others and use that knowledge to understand their own situation; and Web-based programs and websites helped to find out how to deal on a day-to-day basis with stress and anxiety. The analysis of open-ended responses showed that although many people valued technology and felt it could support targeted activities, it was not seen as a substitute for traditional face-to-face therapy. Participants wanted technology to be more sophisticated and nuanced, supporting personalized and actionable recommendations. There was evidence that participants mistrusted technology, irrespective of the type, and had broader concerns regarding the impact of overuse of technology.ConclusionsPeople use different types of technology to support their mental health. Each can serve a specific purpose. Although apps are the most widely used technology, mixing and matching different types of technology is also common. Technology should not be seen as a replacement for traditional psychotherapy, rather it offers new opportunities to support mental health as part of an overall ecosystem. People want technology to be more nuanced and personalized to help them plan informed actions. Future interventions should explore the use of multiple technologies and their combined effects on mental health support.

Project description:BackgroundAmong the general public, there appears to be a growing need and interest in receiving digital mental health and well-being support. In response to this, mental health apps (MHapps) are becoming available for monitoring, managing, and promoting positive mental health and well-being. Thus far, evidence supports favorable outcomes when users engage with MHapps, yet there is a relative paucity of reviews on apps that support positive mental health and well-being.ObjectiveWe aimed to systematically review the available research on MHapps that promote emotion regulation, positive mental health, and well-being in the general population aged 18-45 years. More specifically, the review aimed at providing a systematic description of the theoretical background and features of MHapps while evaluating any potential effectiveness.MethodsA comprehensive literature search of key databases, including MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), PsycINFO (via Ovid), Web of Science, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), was performed until January 2021. Studies were included if they described standalone mental health and well-being apps for adults without a formal mental health diagnosis. The quality of all studies was assessed against the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. In addition, the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool (RoB-2) was used to assess randomized control trials (RCTs). Data were extracted using a modified extraction form from the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews. A narrative synthesis and meta-analysis were then undertaken to address the review aims.ResultsIn total, 3156 abstracts were identified. Of these, 52 publications describing 48 MHapps met the inclusion criteria. Together, the studies evaluated interventions across 15 countries. Thirty-nine RCTs were identified suggesting some support for the role of individual MHapps in improving and promoting mental health and well-being. Regarding the pooled effect, MHapps, when compared to controls, showed a small effect for reducing mental health symptoms (k=19, Hedges g=-0.24, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.14; P<.001) and improving well-being (k=13, g=0.17, 95% CI 0.05-0.29, P=.004), and a medium effect for emotion regulation (k=6, g=0.49, 95% CI 0.23-0.74, P<.001). There is also a wide knowledge base of creative and innovative ways to engage users in techniques such as mood monitoring and guided exercises. Studies were generally assessed to contribute unclear or a high risk of bias, or to be of medium to low methodological quality.ConclusionsThe emerging evidence for MHapps that promote positive mental health and well-being suggests promising outcomes. Despite a wide range of MHapps, few apps specifically promote emotion regulation. However, our findings may position emotion regulation as an important mechanism for inclusion in future MHapps. A fair proportion of the included studies were pilot or feasibility trials (k=17, 33%), and full-scale RCTs reported high attrition rates and nondiverse samples. Given the number and pace at which MHapps are being released, further robust research is warranted to inform the development and testing of evidence-based programs.

Project description:Adherence to prescribed medication is suboptimal in 50% of the chronic population, resulting in negative medical and economic outcomes. With the widespread use of mobile phones worldwide, medication adherence apps for mobile phones become promising medication adherence aids thanks to simplicity, user-friendliness, and accessibility for the public. Yet, until today, there is insufficient evidence in favor of using mobile health (mHealth) apps to increase medication adherence. This study aims to develop a methodology for scientific and end-user (patient) mHealth evaluation (a) to identify medication adherence apps search terms, (b) to evaluate identified apps based on scientific criteria, and (c) to report best smartphone apps evaluated by patients. Search terms were identified via literature review and expertise. Firstly, an online questionnaire was developed to identify frequently used search terms by recruited patients. Related medication adherence apps were identified and selected using predefined inclusion criteria. Secondly, identified apps were evaluated thanks to a scientific evaluation method and a created online questionnaire for patient feedback. Recruited patients were invited to test and evaluate the selected apps. Out of 1,833 free-of-charge and 307 paid apps identified, only four free-of-charge and three paid apps remained included in the study after eligibility criteria. None of the selected app reached a high score. Looking at the overall scores, Medisafe (59%), MyTherapy (56%), and Meds on time (44%) received the highest scores in the scientific app evaluation. In the patient evaluation, Dosecast (3.83 out of five points), Medisafe (3.62), and SwissMeds (3.50) received the highest scores. None of the apps in this research has undergone a process for certification, for example, CE marking, through a notified body. Security and data protection aspects of existing apps highly contribute to these low evaluation scores through little information on patient's data processing and storage. This might be corrected through the introduction of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Economic Area (EEA) and more scrutiny through regulatory bodies in the EU/EEA and the USA. None of the applications should be recommended by healthcare providers. In addition, clinical studies with chronic patients are necessary to measure long-term app impacts.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is little research on the application of gamification to mental health and well-being. Furthermore, usage of gamification-related terminology is inconsistent. Current applications of gamification for health and well-being have also been critiqued for adopting a behaviorist approach that relies on positive reinforcement and extrinsic motivators. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to analyze current applications of gamification for mental health and well-being by answering 3 research questions (RQs). RQ1: which gamification elements are most commonly applied to apps and technologies for improving mental health and well-being? RQ2: which mental health and well-being domains are most commonly targeted by these gamified apps and technologies? RQ3: what reasons do researchers give for applying gamification to these apps and technologies? A systematic review of the literature was conducted to answer these questions. METHODS:We searched ACM Digital Library, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, IEEE Explore, JMIR, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science for qualifying papers published between the years 2013 and 2018. To answer RQ1 and RQ2, papers were coded for gamification elements and mental health and well-being domains according to existing taxonomies in the game studies and medical literature. During the coding process, it was necessary to adapt our coding frame and revise these taxonomies. Thematic analysis was conducted to answer RQ3. RESULTS:The search and screening process identified 70 qualifying papers that collectively reported on 50 apps and technologies. The most commonly observed gamification elements were levels or progress feedback, points or scoring, rewards or prizes, narrative or theme, personalization, and customization; the least commonly observed elements were artificial assistance, unlockable content, social cooperation, exploratory or open-world approach, artificial challenge, and randomness. The most commonly observed mental health and well-being domains were anxiety disorders and well-being, whereas the least commonly observed domains were conduct disorder and bipolar disorders. Researchers' justification for applying gamification to improving mental health and well-being was coded in 59% (41/70) of the papers and was broadly divided into 2 themes: (1) promoting engagement and (2) enhancing an intervention's intended effects. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggest that the current application of gamification to apps and technologies for improving mental health and well-being does not align with the trend of positive reinforcement critiqued in the greater health and well-being literature. We also observed overlap between the most commonly used gamification techniques and existing behavior change frameworks. Results also suggest that the application of gamification is not driven by health behavior change theory, and that many researchers may treat gamification as a black box without consideration for its underlying mechanisms. We call for the inclusion of more comprehensive and explicit descriptions of how gamification is applied and the standardization of applied games terminology within and across fields.

Project description:Mobile phone health apps are increasingly gaining attention in oncological care as potential tools for supporting cancer patients. Although the number of publications and health apps focusing on cancer is increasing, there are still few specifically designed for the most prevalent cancers diagnosed: breast and prostate cancers. There is a need to review the effect of these apps on breast and prostate cancer patients' quality of life (QoL) and well-being.The purposes of this study were to review the scientific literature on mobile phone apps targeting breast or prostate cancer patients and involving QoL and well-being (anxiety and depression symptoms) and analyze the clinical and technological characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses of these apps, as well as patients' user experience with them.We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature from The Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica Database, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and MEDLINE to identify studies involving apps focused on breast and/or prostate cancer patients and QoL and/or well-being published between January 1, 2000, and July 12, 2017. Only trial studies which met the inclusion criteria were selected. The systematic review was completed with a critical analysis of the apps previously identified in the health literature research that were available from the official app stores.The systematic review of the literature yielded 3862 articles. After removal of duplicates, 3229 remained and were evaluated on the basis of title and abstract. Of these, 3211 were discarded as not meeting the inclusion criteria, and 18 records were selected for full text screening. Finally, 5 citations were included in this review, with a total of 644 patients, mean age 52.16 years. Four studies targeted breast cancer patients and 1 focused on prostate cancer patients. Four studies referred to apps that assessed QoL. Only 1 among the 5 analyzed apps was available from the official app store. In 3 studies, an app-related intervention was carried out, and 2 of them reported an improvement on QoL. The lengths of the app-related interventions varied from 4 to 12 weeks. Because 2 of the studies only tracked use of the app, no effect on QoL or well-being was found.Despite the existence of hundreds of studies involving cancer-focused mobile phone apps, there is a lack of rigorous trials regarding the QoL and/or well-being assessment in breast and/or prostate cancer patients. A strong and collective effort should be made by all health care providers to determine those cancer-focused apps that effectively represent useful, accurate, and reliable tools for cancer patients' disease management.PROSPERO CRD42017073069; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID= CRD42017073069 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6v38Clb9T).