scholarly journals Do pregnant women with overweight and obesity find a nutrition and exercise intervention with smartphone app support acceptable? Findings from the PEARs randomised controlled trial. (Preprint)

10.2196/17189 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen Greene ◽  
Eileen O'Brien ◽  
Kate Ainscough ◽  
Maria A Kennelly ◽  
Orna A O'Brien ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen Greene ◽  
Eileen O'Brien ◽  
Kate Ainscough ◽  
Maria A Kennelly ◽  
Orna A O'Brien ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Dietary interventions can improve pregnancy outcomes amongst women with increased BMI. Furthermore, interest in mobile health (mHealth) is growing but little is known about the acceptability of a smartphone app to support lifestyle interventions among such a cohort. OBJECTIVE We aimed to assess the acceptability of the PEARs study and the use of mHealth in a mixed lifestyle intervention. METHODS PEARs was a randomised controlled trial of a low glycaemic index (GI) dietary intervention with exercise prescription and smartphone app, delivered to pregnant women with overweight and obesity. Acceptability questionnaires were completed by the intervention group at 28 weeks’ gestation (n = 149) and post-intervention (n = 123). Maternal characteristics were recorded (age, ethnicity, BMI, socioeconomic status). Associations between maternal characteristics and acceptability of the intervention and app were analysed using t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, chi-squares and logistic regression. One-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sub-cohort of intervention participants (n = 28) at 34 weeks’ gestation, in which participants shared their experience of the PEARs intervention. RESULTS The intervention was generally accepted, with respondents agreeing that the diet was easy to follow (68.5%), enjoyable (74.1%) and affordable (76.9%). Qualitative and quantitative results were consistent with one another, both demonstrating that app acceptability was high. Participants agreed that the app was enjoyable (80%) and easy to use (97.5%). Compared to those with tertiary education, those with lower education were more likely to enjoy the dietary changes (P = .039). Enjoyment of the app was associated with disadvantaged neighbourhood deprivation index (P = .012) and higher BMI (B = .172, P = .029). CONCLUSIONS The PEARs intervention and use of a supportive smartphone app were accepted by pregnant women, particularly by those from vulnerable subgroups of the population. CLINICALTRIAL https://www.isrctn.com/, ISRCTN29316280


Trials ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph G. Wasser ◽  
Daniel C. Herman ◽  
MaryBeth Horodyski ◽  
Jason L. Zaremski ◽  
Brady Tripp ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Praveen Indraratna ◽  
Uzzal Biswas ◽  
James McVeigh ◽  
Andrew Mamo ◽  
Joseph Magdy ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND This is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a mobile health intervention that combines telemonitoring and educational components for both acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and heart failure (HF) inpatients to prevent readmission. OBJECTIVE Objective: To evaluate the feasibility, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a smartphone app-based model of care (TeleClinical Care – TCC) plus usual care in patients being discharged from hospital after an ACS or HF admission, in comparison to usual care alone. METHODS Methods: In this pilot, 2-centre RCT, a smartphone app-based model of care (TeleClinical Care – TCC) was applied at discharge. The primary endpoint was the incidence of unplanned 30-day readmissions. Secondary endpoints included all-cause readmissions, cardiac readmissions, cardiac rehabilitation completion, medication adherence, cost-effectiveness and user satisfaction. Intervention arm participants received the app and Bluetooth-enabled devices for measuring weight, blood pressure and physical activity daily, plus usual care. The devices automatically transmitted recordings to the patient’s smartphone and then subsequently to a central server. Abnormal readings were flagged by email to a monitoring team. Control participants received usual care. RESULTS Results: 164 hospital inpatients were randomised at the time of discharge (TCC n=81, control n = 83, mean age 61.5 years, 79% male, 78% admitted with ACS). There were 11 unplanned 30-day readmissions in both groups (P = .97). Over a mean follow-up of 193 days, the intervention was associated with a significant reduction in unplanned hospital readmissions (21 vs. 41 readmissions, P = 0.015), including cardiac readmissions (11 vs. 25, P = .025), and higher rates of cardiac rehabilitation completion (39% vs. 18%, P = .025) and medication adherence (75% vs. 50%, P = .002). The average usability rating of the app was 4.5/5. The intervention cost AUD $6,028 per cardiac readmission saved. When modelled in a mainstream clinical setting, however, enrolment of 237 patients was projected to have the same healthcare expenditure compared to usual care, and enrolment of 500 patients was projected to save approximately AUD $100,000. CONCLUSIONS Conclusion: TCC was feasible and safe for ACS and HF inpatients. The incidence of 30-day readmissions was similar, however long-term benefits were demonstrated including fewer total readmissions over 6 months, improved medication adherence and improved cardiac rehabilitation completion. CLINICALTRIAL The study was registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001547235).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document