Effectiveness, usability, and patient satisfaction of an mHealth application with an integrated ePRO system following lumbar degenerative spinal surgery: A quasi-experimental study.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
DIGITAL HEALTH Pub Date : 2025-03-20 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/20552076251324687
Marianne Dyrby Lorenzen, Casper Friis Pedersen, Line Nielsen, Mikkel O Andersen, Jane Clemensen, Leah Y Carreon
{"title":"Effectiveness, usability, and patient satisfaction of an mHealth application with an integrated ePRO system following lumbar degenerative spinal surgery: A quasi-experimental study.","authors":"Marianne Dyrby Lorenzen, Casper Friis Pedersen, Line Nielsen, Mikkel O Andersen, Jane Clemensen, Leah Y Carreon","doi":"10.1177/20552076251324687","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>There is a lack of comprehensive clinical research to assess potential benefits of mHealth solutions in post discharge follow-up care after spinal surgery.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This quasi-experimental study evaluated the effectiveness, usability, and patient satisfaction of an mHealth pathway with an electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO)-based post-discharge nurse-led intervention for patients undergoing surgery for lumbar spine degenerative disorders, compared to standard care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Conducted at a Danish tertiary spine center, this study represents the final stage of a three-phase participatory design. The primary outcome was patient quality of recovery, measured by the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included patient-perceived usability, assessed with the Danish System Usability Scale (SUS). To capture additional patient insights, an open-ended feedback question was included at the end of the survey.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 150 patients (77 women and 73 men) were analyzed, with 104 in the intervention group and 46 in the comparison group. Both groups showed significant improvement over time, but no significant difference between groups. Of 154 potential SUS respondents, 110 participated. Analysis revealed 48 statements, categorized into five themes: (1) Usability and functionality of the mHealth solution, (2) Feedback on the QoR-15 questionnaire, (3) Safety and support, (4) Missing functions and suggestions for improvements, and (5) Patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No significant differences in effectiveness between the mHealth pathway and standard care were found for post-surgery recovery in lumbar spine patients. Usability and patient satisfaction were generally high, though suggestions for improvements were noted. The study highlighted the importance of post-discharge support, suggesting that the intervention provided crucial security and support, potentially demonstrating compassion through nurse-led care.</p>","PeriodicalId":51333,"journal":{"name":"DIGITAL HEALTH","volume":"11 ","pages":"20552076251324687"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11926844/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DIGITAL HEALTH","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076251324687","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: There is a lack of comprehensive clinical research to assess potential benefits of mHealth solutions in post discharge follow-up care after spinal surgery.

Purpose: This quasi-experimental study evaluated the effectiveness, usability, and patient satisfaction of an mHealth pathway with an electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO)-based post-discharge nurse-led intervention for patients undergoing surgery for lumbar spine degenerative disorders, compared to standard care.

Methods: Conducted at a Danish tertiary spine center, this study represents the final stage of a three-phase participatory design. The primary outcome was patient quality of recovery, measured by the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included patient-perceived usability, assessed with the Danish System Usability Scale (SUS). To capture additional patient insights, an open-ended feedback question was included at the end of the survey.

Results: Data from 150 patients (77 women and 73 men) were analyzed, with 104 in the intervention group and 46 in the comparison group. Both groups showed significant improvement over time, but no significant difference between groups. Of 154 potential SUS respondents, 110 participated. Analysis revealed 48 statements, categorized into five themes: (1) Usability and functionality of the mHealth solution, (2) Feedback on the QoR-15 questionnaire, (3) Safety and support, (4) Missing functions and suggestions for improvements, and (5) Patient satisfaction.

Conclusion: No significant differences in effectiveness between the mHealth pathway and standard care were found for post-surgery recovery in lumbar spine patients. Usability and patient satisfaction were generally high, though suggestions for improvements were noted. The study highlighted the importance of post-discharge support, suggesting that the intervention provided crucial security and support, potentially demonstrating compassion through nurse-led care.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
DIGITAL HEALTH
DIGITAL HEALTH Multiple-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
302
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信