ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Adolescents at risk for anaphylaxis are a growing concern. Novel training methods are needed to better prepare individuals to manage anaphylaxis in the community. INTRODUCTION: Didactic training as the sole method of anaphylaxis education has been shown to be ineffective. We developed a smartphone-based interactive teaching tool with decision support and epinephrine auto-injector (EAI) training to provide education accessible beyond the clinic. METHODS: This study consisted of two parts: (1) Use of food allergy scenarios to assess the decision support's ability to improve allergic reaction management knowledge. (2) An assessment of our EAI training module on participant's ability to correctly demonstrate the use of an EAI by comparing it to label instructions. RESULTS: Twenty-two adolescents were recruited. The median (range) baseline number of correct answers on the scenarios before the intervention was 9 (3-11). All subjects improved with decision support, increasing to 11 (9-12) (p < .001). The median (range) demonstration score was 6 (5-6) for the video training module group and 4.5 (3-6) for the label group (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Results suggest that the use of this novel m-health application can improve anaphylaxis symptom recognition and increase the likelihood of choosing the appropriate treatment. In addition, performing EAI steps in conjunction with the video training resulted in more accurate medication delivery with fewer missed steps compared to the use of written instructions alone. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that mobile health decision support technology for anaphylaxis emergency preparedness may support traditional methods of training by providing improved access to anaphylaxis training in the community setting.
Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis/diagnosis , Anaphylaxis/drug therapy , Bronchodilator Agents/therapeutic use , Epinephrine/therapeutic use , Food Hypersensitivity/diagnosis , Food Hypersensitivity/drug therapy , Telemedicine/methods , Adolescent , Computer-Assisted Instruction/methods , Decision Making , Female , Humans , Male , Patient Education as Topic/methods , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young AdultABSTRACT
This article describes the implementation of the American Indian mHealth Smoking Dependence Study focusing on the differences between what was written in the grant application compared to what happened in reality. The study was designed to evaluate a multicomponent intervention involving 256 participants randomly assigned to one of 15 groups. Participants received either a minimal or an intense level of four intervention components: (1) nicotine replacement therapy, (2) precessation counseling, (3) cessation counseling, and (4) mHealth text messaging. The project team met via biweekly webinars as well as one to two in-person meetings per year throughout the study. The project team openly shared progress and challenges and collaborated to find proactive solutions to address challenges as compared to what was planned in the original grant application. The project team used multiple strategies to overcome unanticipated intervention issues: (1) cell phone challenges, (2) making difficult staffing decisions, (3) survey lessons, (4) nicotine replacement therapy, (5) mHealth text messages, (6) motivational interviewing counseling sessions, and (7) use of e-cigarettes. Smoking cessation studies should be designed based on the grant plans. However, on the ground reality issues needed to be addressed to assure the scientific rigor and innovativeness of this study.
Subject(s)
Counseling/methods , Indians, North American/psychology , Smoking Cessation/methods , Smoking Prevention/methods , Text Messaging/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Cell Phone , Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems , Female , Health Behavior , Humans , Male , Random Allocation , Smoking Cessation/psychology , Tobacco Use Cessation DevicesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Three-fourths of patients with advanced cancer are reported to suffer from pain. A primary barrier to provision of adequate symptom treatment is failure to appreciate the intensity of the symptoms patients are experiencing. Because data on Bangladeshi and Nepalese patients' perceptions of their symptomatic status are limited, we sought such information using a cell phone questionnaire. METHODS: At tertiary care centers in Dhaka and Kathmandu, we recruited 640 and 383 adult patients, respectively, with incurable malignancy presenting for outpatient visits and instructed them for that single visit on one-time completion of a cell phone platform 15-item survey of questions about common cancer-associated symptoms and their magnitudes using Likert scales of 0 to 10. The questions were taken from the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and the Brief Pain Inventory instruments. RESULTS: All but two Bangladeshi patients recruited agreed to study participation. Two-thirds of Bangladeshi patients reported usual pain levels ≥ 5, and 50% of Nepalese patients reported usual pain levels ≥ 4 (population differences significant at P < .001). CONCLUSION: Bangladeshi and Nepalese adults with advanced cancer are comfortable with cell phone questionnaires about their symptoms and report high levels of pain. Greater attention to the suffering of these patients is warranted.
